http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: M. SATYANANDAM

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OFANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT17/07/1987

BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) OZA, G.L. (J)

CITATION:  1987 AIR 1968            1987 SCR  (3) 566  1987 SCC  (3) 574        JT 1987 (3)   127  1987 SCALE  (2)97

ACT:     Administrative  Law--Release of possession  of  premises held  by  Government--Government  has power  to  review  its earlier  order by taking subsequent events  into  considera- tion.

HEADNOTE:     The  petitioner was an allottee of the premises held  by the  Government at the relevant time. The  landlady  applied for  release of the premises but the request  was  rejected. However, upon a further representation made by the  landlady stating  that her son was not allowing her to live with  him in  another house belonging to her, the Government  made  an order  releasing  the premises in her favour and  asked  the petitioner to vacate the premises. Several notices were also issued to him in that behalf. The petitioner challenged  the order  of release contending that he had not been  given  an opportunity  to show cause, and, that the Government had  no power to review its earlier order rejecting the request; but the petition was dismissed by the High Court. Dismissing the petition for Special Leave to appeal.     HELD: It is well settled law of this Court that in  case of  bona  fide need, subsequent events must  be  taken  into account  if they are relevant to the question of release  of possession of the premises. The contention that the  Govern- ment  cannot review its own order cannot be accepted.  When, in spite of the’notices given to him, the petitioner did not choose to move out of the premises it cannot be said that he was not given an opportunity to show cause. [567B-C]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Special  Leave  Petition (Civil) No. 7213 of 1987.     From  the  Judgment and Order dated 19.5.  1987  of  the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.A. No. 672 of 1987. P.P. Rao and P.P. Singh for the Appellant.  567 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This petition arises out of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

judgment and order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Sree P.P.  Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner  submits  that the order of release was bad because the authorised  officer had  no  power to review the previous order nor he  had  the power  to release the property of the landlady without  even giving  an  opportunity to the petitioner. In the  facts  of this  case  as  noted by the High Court, we  are  unable  to entertain  these  contentions. We are unable to  accept  the contention that the Government cannot review its own  order. It  is well-settled law of this Court that in case  of  bona fide  need subsequent events must be taken into  account  if they  are relevant on the question of release or  possession of  the  premises in question. On a  previous  occasion  the Government  had  declined  to release  the  premises,  later on  .the representation made by the landlady the  Government changed its decision. The landlady had filed an  application for  releasing the premises in her favour, but the same  was initially  rejected on 25.9.1978. Again the landlady made  a further representation stating certain additional and  fresh circumstances, that is to say, that her son was not allowing her to live with him in another house belonging to her.  The Government  took  into  account the  subsequent  events  and passed  the  order on 19.3. 1980 releasing the  premises  in favour of the landlady. We do not see how to take cognizance of  such  subsequent events releasing the  premises  can  be described an order in nullity in the facts of this case.     The  next  contention  was that the  petitioner  was  an allottee  of the premises by virtue of his being in  service but  the petitioner was really a tenant of the  premises  in question.     The Government informed the petitioner to make  alterna- tive  arrangements  or seek  accommodation.  The  Government issued several notices on 24.11.1978, 22.5.1979,  12.7.1979, 27.9.1970  and 17.1.1980 to the petitioner and  these  facts have  been  stated and have also been taken note of  by  the High Court in the judgment under challenge. In spite of  the said notices given to the petitioner who was an allottee and who was informed about the requirement of the landlady,  the petitioner did not choose to move out from the premises.  In the  meantime,  the petitioner has retired from  service  in 1986 and a long time has passed now. In this case we do  not think  it  can be said that the order was  bad  because  the petitioner  was initially not given an opportunity  to  show cause.  Actually the petitioner had enough  opportunity.  In the premises, the special leave petition fails and we do 568 not find any ground to interfere with the order of the  High Court.     Having  regard  to  the facts that  the  petitioner  had acquired  government accommodation and he has stayed in  the premises  in  question for sometime, we allow  him  to  make alternative  arrangement by 31.12.1987. The order for  evic- tion  will  not be executed until  31.12.1987  provided  the petitioner  files an undertaking in this Court  within  four weeks  from  today to vacate and hand over the  premises  in question. H.L.C.                                              Petition dismissed. 569