Jahanvi Agarwal
The Uttarakhand High Court has ordered 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, stressing that the rule of law should prevail.
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,” after observing that the Government should have started eviction proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
The Court was primarily dealing with a writ petition brought by 4 residents of the IDPL Colony in Rishikesh contesting the State Government’s order of July 19 i.e., directing for the eviction/demolition of the accommodations held by the petitioners, by virtue of their being the ex-employees of IDPL.
The petitioners claimed that they had occupied the housing units given to them by IDPL/respondent no. 7 on various days while an IDPL employee worked there. The Central Government, on the other hand, has shut down IDPL since it is no longer operational.
The Central Government agreed to return the whole lease land (899.53 Acres of IDPL’s Rishikesh Plant of IDPL wherein the houses exist) which was leased to the State Government, the Court was further informed.
The aforementioned lease with IDPL expired on November 27, 2021. The State Government then issued an order on July 19, 2023, to demolish or vacate the residence.
The lawyer representing the petitioners argued that even if IDPL had a lease with the State of Uttarakhand, the petitioners’ occupancy of the accommodations in question, which were assigned to them by IDPL, could only be described as an unauthorized occupation. Rather than demolish the homes, the government should make use of the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act of 1971, under which a specific process has been outlined.
In light of these arguments, the DAG replied that he was unable to comment when the court asked the state’s attorney if the petitioners had received any notice from the state government prior to the court’s issuance of the contested order.
Considering this, the Court noted that although the petitioners’ occupation of the aforementioned accommodations may have been unlawful or unauthorized following IDPL’s cancellation of the allotment after the expiration of the lease agreement with the state of Uttarakhand, 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 stated as it suspended the application of the Government’s decision that:
“Since petitioners came in possession of the accommodations-in question after allotment made to them by IDPL, they cannot be termed as rank trespassers.”
Case Name: Gulshan Bhanot and others v. State of Uttarakhand and others
Diary Number: 2076/2023
Bench: Justice Pankaj Purohit