Shri. Syamal Chowdhury v. The Honble Lt.Governor And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CO/10/2025 Shri Syamal Chowdhury Vs.

The Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor and Another Mr. K. Vijay Kumar .... for the petitioner Mr. Rakesh Kumar ... for the respondents March 13, 2025 [SR] Item No.5 1.

A frivolous application has been filed challenging the order of the District Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands by which the order passed by the learned District Judge affirming the order of the Estate Officer, (Assistant Commissioner (South Andaman)) under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 on 22nd December, 2021 in Eviction Case No.2 of 2021.

2.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that no proper notice was served upon the petitioner inasmuch as he was not given any opportunity to adduce evidence in the said proceeding.

3.

The proceeding was initiated on the basis of an observation made by the by the Hon'ble Division Bench in MA/6/2018 (Andaman and Nicobar Administration and others vs. Shyamal Chowhdury) on 20th September, 2021. The appellate authorities were directed to initiate proceedings under

the Public Premises Act within a period of four months from the date of the order i.e. 20th September, 2021.

4.

It is not the case of the petitioner that he has not received any notice or did not participate in the said proceeding. Shortness of the period of notice was sought to be argued which does not appear to be convincing as he has adequate information and knowledge as to the issues to be decided by the authority concerned as by the time then notice was issued, two rounds of proceedings were initiated and concluded. 5.

It is argued that the petitioner was prevented from adducing evidence by oral and documentary to show that the initiation of proceeding is bad or no fining could have been arrived at in the said proceeding against the petitioner. 6.

I have repeatedly asked the learned counsel to show the documents which the petitioner wanted to rely in the said proceeding or the evidence the petitioner wanted to adduce before the authority concerned.

7.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show any documents or evidence that the petitioner was prevented from producing in the said proceeding.

8.

On the contrary, the detailed order of the learned District Judge which shows that enough opportunity was given to the petitioner and on consideration of the material on record, the order for eviction was passed. In absence of any material to show that the documents or any evidence was, if whereof considered, would have turned the decision in favour of the petitioner are not considered by the authorities concerned, I am

not inclined interfere with the order passed by the learned District Judge.

9.

The writ petition fails. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

( Soumen Sen, J. )