'No One Is Above Law To Direct For Demolition Of Accommodation Sans Due Process Of Law': Ut'khand HC Stays Razing Of IDPL Houses
Stressing that the rule of law should prevail, the Uttarakhand High Court recently directed the State Government to stop the demolition of houses inside the IDPL (Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited) Colony within its 899.53 Acres now-closed Rishikesh Plant.Observing that the Government should have initiated eviction proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized...
Stressing that the rule of law should prevail, the Uttarakhand High Court recently directed the State Government to stop the demolition of houses inside the IDPL (Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited) Colony within its 899.53 Acres now-closed Rishikesh Plant.
Observing that the Government should have initiated eviction proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, the bench of Justice Pankaj Purohit reminded the state that "no one is above the law to direct the eviction and demolition of the accommodation, without due process of law".
Staying the Government order for the demolition of the houses, the Court directed it to file its response in the matter within 4 weeks and posted the matter for hearing on September 19.
"The rule of law should prevail and no one is above the law to direct the eviction and demolition of the accommodation, without due process of law" : says #UttarakhandHighCourt while staying demolition of houses in Rishikesh Plant of 'Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited'. pic.twitter.com/y6usiNclxG
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) August 8, 2023
Essentially, the Court was dealing with a writ petition filed by 4 residents of the IDPL Colony in Rishikesh challenging the State Government's order of July 19, directing for the eviction/demolition of the accommodation held by the petitioners, by their virtue of being the ex-employee of IDPL.
It was the case of the petitioners that they have been in occupation of the accommodation provided to them by IDPL/respondent no.7 on different dates, on there being the employee of IDPL. However, since IDPL has now become inoperative, therefore, the Central Government has closed it down.
It was further apprised to the Court that a decision was taken by the Central Government to give back the whole of the lease land (899.53 Acres of Rishikesh Plant of IDPL wherein the houses exist) which was leased out to it, to the State Government.
The said lease with IDPL came to an end on November 27, 2021. Thereafter, the State Government issued an order on July 19, 2023, for the demolition/eviction of the accommodation.
It was contended by the Counsel for the petitioners that even if the lease of IDPL with the State of Uttarakhand, still, the occupation of the petitioners on the accommodations-in-question, which was allotted to them by IDPL, can only be termed as an unauthorized occupation and hence, rather than demolishing the houses, the Government should invoke the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, whereunder a detailed procedure has been prescribed to tackle with unauthorized occupants and their eviction.
Against the backdrop of these submissions, when the Court inquired from the counsel appearing for the state as to whether before passing the impugned order, any notice had been issued to the petitioners by the State Government, the DAG expressed his inability to say anything about this.
In view of this, the Court observed that the petitioners' occupation on the accommodations-in-question may be illegal/unauthorized after cancellation of the allotment by IDPL after the expiry of the lease deed with the state of Uttarakhand, however, the rule of law should prevail and no one is above the law to direct the eviction and demolition of the accommodation, without due process of law.
The Court also said that once the petitioners did not hand over vacant possessions to IDPL after the expiry of the lease, they are no longer the occupants of IDPL and the State Government should have initiated eviction proceedings under the 1971 Act.
"Since petitioners came in possession of the accommodations-in question after allotment made to them by IDPL, they cannot be termed as rank trespassers," the Court further remarked as it stayed the operation of the Government's order.
Advocate Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta along with Advocates Rafat Munir Ali and Irum Zeba appeared for the petitioners. DAG TS Bisht appeared for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos.1 to 6. Advocate Atul Bhatt appeared for respondent no.8/Union of India.
Case title - Gulshan Bhanot and others vs. State of Uttarakhand and others