{"id":171400,"date":"2011-09-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mr-hl-jani-for-on-2-september-2011"},"modified":"2016-11-04T04:58:53","modified_gmt":"2016-11-03T23:28:53","slug":"whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mr-hl-jani-for-on-2-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mr-hl-jani-for-on-2-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs Mr Hl Jani For on 2 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs Mr Hl Jani For on 2 September, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: S.K.Keshote,<\/div>\n
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n\n\n\n     SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 5811 of 1984\n\n\n\n\n     For Approval and Signature:\n\n\n     Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE\n     ============================================================\n<\/pre>\n
     1.      Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
\n             to see the judgements?\n<\/p>\n
     2.      To be referred to the Reporter or not?\n<\/p>\n
     3.      Whether Their Lordships    wish to see the fair copy
\n             of the judgement?\n<\/p>\n
     4.      Whether this case involves a substantial question
\n             of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
\n             of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?\n<\/p>\n
     5.      Whether   it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge?\n<\/p>\n
     ————————————————————–
\n     C.T. SONARA
\nVersus
\n     STATE OF GUJARAT\n<\/p>\n
     ————————————————————–
\n     Appearance:\n<\/p>\n
          MR IS SUPEHIA for Petitioner
\n          MR HL JANI for Respondents<\/p>\n
     ————————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
     CORAM : MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE
\n     Date of decision: 05\/05\/97<\/p>\n
ORAL JUDGEMENT\n<\/p>\n
     1.The petitioner, a Police Inspector of the Police
\n     Department of the State of Gujarat, filed this Special
\n     Civil Application and prayer has been made for quashing
\n     and setting aside of the order dated 7-11-1984 under
\n     which the respondent No.2 has ordered for recovery of
\n     Rs.36740-45 from the salary of the petitioner at the
\n     monthly installments of Rs.500\/-.\n<\/p>\n
 2.The facts of the case as stated by the petitioner
\nin the petition, in brief, are that the petitioner was
\nallotted in the year 1979, a rent free accommodation in
\nAdarshnagar, Ahmedabad, bearing Block No.39\/464 as he was
\nserving as Police Sub-Inspector in Ahmedabad.         The
\npetitioner was ordered to be transferred from Ahmedabad
\nto Sabarkantha District and he was relieved on 2-1-1981.
\nThe petitioner retained the possession of the premises
\naforesaid on the pretext that he was not allotted
\npremises at his transferred place.       In the month of
\nOctober, 1981, the petitioner was allotted a rent free
\naccommodation at Ambaliara.    After the allotment of the
\nrent free accommodation at the aforesaid place, the
\npetitioner came to Ahmedabad and vacated the aforesaid
\npremises which was in his possession till then.       The
\npetitioner was in a hurry and therefore he asked his
\nbrother-in-law, Shri M.S. Parmar, to hand over the key
\nof   the   premises to the concerned Officer of the
\ndepartment, but his brother-in-law forgot to do so.   The
\npetitioner averred that, it seems that thereafter one Mr.
\nV.J. Desai, Police Inspector, broke open the lock of the
\naforesaid premises and entered in possession thereof.\n<\/p>\n
3.Under the notice dated 6-10-1982, annexure `A’,
\nof the Director of C.I.D., Ahmedabad, the petitioner was
\ncalled upon to vacate the official quarter and to hand
\nover its possession within seven days from the receipt
\nthereof.   It has further been stated in the notice that
\nin case he fails to comply with the notice, accordingly
\nlegal steps to take over the possession under sec.31(2)
\nof the Bombay Police Act would be commenced against him.
\nAfter the receipt of the said notice, the petitioner came
\nto Ahmedabad and gave in writing that the premises are in
\npossession of Shri V.J. Desai who had broken the lock of
\nthe premises and the possession of the premises may be
\ntaken from Shri V.J. Desai.\n<\/p>\n
4.The petitioner was served with another notice
\ndated 7-2-1983 and he was called upon to vacate the
\npremises within seven days, failing which action under
\nsec.31(2) of the Bombay Police Act would be taken.     In
\nthis notice, the petitioner was called upon to pay in the
\ntreasury the amount of outstanding rent with effect from
\n2-1-1981 at the rate of 10% of the pay plus Rs.10\/- as
\nservice    charges  for   the period from 3-1-1981 to
\n31-3-1983.\n<\/p>\n
5.The department under its notice dated 28th March,
\n1983, with reference to its earlier notice dated 7th
\nFebruary, 1983, informed the petitioner that he was duty
\nbound to hand over the possession of the quarter in
\n question under written communication to the office. If
\nany unknown person is in occupation of the said quarter,
\nhaving entered therein by breaking open the lock without
\nhis knowledge, he is at liberty to take legal steps
\nagainst the trespasser. He was called upon to show cause
\nas to why he has not complained about such a trespass to
\nthe department so far. It has further been informed in
\nthe letter that so long as the petitioner does not vacate
\nand hand over the possession of the quarter in question,
\nit will be treated against his name, and he was directed
\nto taken note that he will be held liable to bear and pay
\nthe usual rent for the said period.        He was further
\ncalled upon to pay the economic rent along with the usual
\nservice charges as per the details shown         in   the
\naccompanied statement and to get the amount credited in
\ntreasury and to send a copy of the challan in proof
\nthereof.   He was further called upon to hand over the
\npossession within 15 days, failing which the market rent
\nwould be charged.\n<\/p>\n
6.The petitioner was thereafter served with a memo
\ndated 5-10-1983, annexure `D’ and he was informed that as
\nper the Government resolution dated 22-10-1982 issued by
\nthe   Public   Works   Department   (Roads   & Building)
\nGandhinagar, the market rent of the disputed block No.39
\nhas been fixed at Rs.1251-80ps.      per month.    He was
\ncalled upon to pay Rs.36740-80.   Vide memorandum dated
\n6-10-1983, the petitioner has been informed that the
\npossession of the quarter has been taken on 13th June,
\n1983 from Police   Inspector Shri V.J.      Desai.    The
\npetitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the
\ndepartmental inquiry should not be initiated against him.\n<\/p>\n
7.Under the memo dated 14th August, 1984, the
\npetitioner was called upon to deposit into treasury an
\namount of Rs.36740-45 within seven days. Further notice
\nwas given in this respect to the petitioner on 28th
\nSeptember, 1984. On 7-11-1984, order has been passed to
\nrecover   the   aforesaid   amount   by way of monthly
\ninstallments of Rs.500\/- from the petitioner.     Hence,
\nthis Special Civil Application before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
8.Affidavit-in-reply   has   been   filed   by the
\nrespondent in this case on 3-3-1997. On the direction of
\nthis Court, the Director General of Police, Gujarat
\nState, filed his affidavit on 2nd April, 1997. The
\ncounsel for the respondents produced various Government
\nResolutions on the record of this petition.\n<\/p>\n
9.The learned counsel for the petitioner contended
\nthat Sec.31 of Bombay Police Act permits the authority to
\n take action against the petitioner for not vacating the
\npremises, and the petitioner should be punished on
\nconviction, but that section gives no power or authority
\nto the department to recover the rent that may be due
\nfrom the petitioner. The second contention has been made
\nthat if at all the petitioner is liable to pay any rent
\nand the authorities have any power to recover the rent,
\nit can only be the economic rent as already conveyed by
\nthe respondent No.2 under its communications, and as
\nsuch, that authority has no power to recover the amount
\nin excess of the rent i.e. to say 10% of the basic pay
\nplus Rs.10\/- as service charges. Assuming for the sake
\nof arguments that the authority has power to recover the
\nrent at market rate, it can only be recovered from the
\ndate of the aforesaid resolution of the Government dated
\n28-10-1982 as that resolution has not         been   given
\nretrospective effect.     It has next been contended that
\nthe amount of the rent for which the petitioner is made
\nliable is not definite and precise in the sense whether
\nthe petitioner is liable to pay the economic rent or the
\nmarket rent.     The respondent No.2 is not competent to
\nadjudicate upon the same and it will be open to the
\nrespondents   to    file a civil suit to recover the
\noutstanding rent.    The respondent No.2 cannot itself
\ndetermine the amount and realise the same. Only remedy
\ncould have been to file a civil suit. Further contention
\nhas been made that the petitioner is entitled for rent
\nfree   accommodation and till he got the rent free
\naccommodation at the transferred place, he is not liable
\nto pay any rent in respect of the premises at Ahmedabad.
\nLastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended
\nthat the respondent No.2 is not entitled to recover the
\namount of rent from the petitioner at the rate of
\nRs.500\/- p.m.    from the salary of the petitioner in view
\nof the provisions of sec.60 of the C.P.C.       read with
\nsec.156 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. In support of
\nhis contention, the counsel for the petitioner placed
\nreliance on the decisions of this Court in the following
\ncases:\n<\/p>\n
S.C.A. No.4618\/91 decided on 12th August, 1991.
\nS.C.A. No.5111\/96 decided on 3rd September, 1996.
\nS.C.A No.10794\/95 decided on 19th December, 1996
\nand
\nS.C.A No.657\/80 decided on 21st March, 1980.\n<\/p>\n
10.Controverting the contentions raised by       the
\nlearned counsel for the petitioner, the counsel for the
\nrespondents   contended   that   the    petitioner    had
\nunauthorisedly occupied the premises at Ahmedabad. On
\ntransfer, the petitioner could have retained the premises
\n for one month and thereafter he could have retained the
\npremises only with prior approval of the department. The
\npetitioner at no point of time prayed for retention of
\nthe premises. He has illegally retained the premises,
\nand as such, as per the provisions of the Government
\nResolution dated 22-10-1982, he is liable to make the
\npayment of the market rent for the period for which he
\nillegally retained the quarter.      It has next     been
\ncontended that for the recovery of the amount of the rent
\nfor illegally retaining the possession of the Government
\npremises which has been given to the petitioner at
\nAhmedabad, the department was not required to file any
\ncivil suit. What amount has to be paid is laid down
\nunder the Government Resolution and the petitioner being
\nthe Government servant is liable to pay the amount for
\nwhich no adjudication is called upon by the department in
\nthe civil suit.     Lastly, it is contended that the
\npetitioner has deliberately managed to continue in the
\npossession of the quarter for the benefit of his friend,
\na good neighbour, an Inspector of the Police department
\nitself.\n<\/p>\n
11.I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
\nsubmissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
12.The petitioner was     allotted   a   rent   free
\naccommodation at Adarshnagar, Ahmedabad, bearing Block
\nNo.39\/464 as he was in service of the Police department
\nat Ahmedabad. He was transferred to Sabarkantha district
\nand he was relieved from Ahmedabad office on 2-1-1981.
\nAs per the Government Resolution of the Public Works
\nDepartment, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, dated 5-6-1975, a
\nGovernment servant on his transfer could have retained
\nthe accommodation for one month after date of the
\ntransfer. Further extension under the said resolution
\nwas permissible if the transfer is made in the midst of
\nan academic term. In such case, the maximum period of
\noccupation should be coterminus with the end of an
\nacademic term. The resolution dated 24th June, 1981 of
\nthe Department of Roads & Building is relevant to be
\nreferred herein, and this resolution also permits the
\nretention of the Government Quarter by the Government
\nservant on transfer for a period of one month from the
\ndate of transfer. However, the retention of the quarter
\nbeyond one month could have been permissible in case the
\ntransfer is effected during the academic year, and if the
\ntransferred employee desires to continue to occupy the
\npremises for the facility of their school or college
\ngoing children then extension could have been only upto
\n31st May of the relevant year.\n<\/p>\n
 13.Then comes the resolution dated 22nd October,
\n1982, and under this resolution, after transfer, a
\nGovernment servant could have retained the quarter for
\ntwo months.     The learned counsel for the petitioner
\ncontended that the resolution dated 22nd October 1982 is
\nnot applicable to the present case as it has not been
\ngiven retrospective effect.      However,   as     per    the
\nresolutions dated 5th June, 1975 and 24th June, 1981, the
\npetitioner could have retained this quarter till 2nd
\nFebruary, 1981. The learned counsel for the petitioner
\nvery fairly conceded, on putting a question by the Court,
\nthat the petitioner has not made any application for
\nextension of the period for retention of the quarter.
\nThe learned counsel for the petitioner also very fairly
\nsubmitted that he is not in a position to say whether any
\nof his children were school or college going at the
\nrelevant time.    The transfer, no doubt, has been made in
\nthe month of January, 1981, and, in case, the petitioner
\nhad any school or college going children, he could have
\nlegitimately prayed for the extension of the time for
\nretention of the quarter till 31st May, 1981.             The
\npetitioner has not applied for the extension of the time
\nwhich goes to show that he was not having any school or
\ncollege going children. However, the learned counsel for
\nthe petitioner stated that the quarter was retained by
\nthe petitioner till October, 1981 and his family was
\nresiding therein, and he shifted his family to District
\nSabarkantha in the month of October, 1981 when the
\nquarter was allotted to him there. So the fact that his
\nfamily was continued at Ahmedabad till October, 1981
\nfurther goes to show that he was not having any school or
\ncollege going children. The petitioner has retained this
\nquarter so that he may continue his family at Ahmedabad.
\nThe retention could have been only for one month, and in
\ncase of the transfer in the midst of an academic term,
\ntill   31st    May, 1981, with prior approval of the
\ndepartment, but that is not the case here, as stated
\nearlier. Beyond one month from the date of his relieving
\nfrom Ahmedabad, the petitioner has no legal right to
\nretain the possession of the quarter.          The     Police
\nOfficers upto the rank of Inspector are to be provided
\nwith a rent free accommodation, and on transfer the
\npremises at Ahmedabad has to be allotted to the other
\nPolice Officer posted at Ahmedabad or waiting in the
\nqueue.   The justification given by the petitioner for
\nretention of the quarter is that he was not allotted the
\nquarter at District Sabarkantha. The learned counsel for
\nthe petitioner has failed to show any resolution of the
\nGovernment or any other provision from a rule or Act that
\nan Officer of the rank of Inspector or Sub-Inspector, on
\nhis transfer, could have retained the quarter at the
\n place, wherefrom he is transferred, till he is allotted a
\nrent free accommodation at the transferred place.\n<\/p>\n
14.From the resolution of the Home Department dated
\n30th November, 1976, it is clear that the Police Officers
\nwho are entitled to rent free accommodation but to whom
\nrent free accommodation is not provided should be granted
\nHouse Rent Allowance at the rates as specified in
\nsub-para (iii) of para one of the Government Resolution
\ndated 1-12-1975. Reference may have to the resolution of
\nthe Finance Department dated 15th May, 1981 which has
\namended the earlier resolutions including the resolution
\ndated 1-12-1975.    Under this resolution, the Government
\nrevised the rates of H.R.A.      in lieu of rent free
\naccommodation. The petitioner was entitled for rent free
\naccommodation and in case it is not allotted then he was
\nentitled for the House Rent Allowance as per          the
\nresolution of the Government dated 15th May, 1981. It
\nmay not be possible to make available a rent free
\naccommodation    to the transferee immediately at the
\ntransferred place.   So where rent free accommodation
\ncould not be made available immediately, then in that
\ncase, an Officer who is entitled        for   rent   free
\naccommodation will get the House Rent Allowance. So the
\njustification given by the petitioner to retain the
\nquarter till October, 1981 on the ground of non-allotment
\nof the rent free accommodation at Sabarkantha District is
\nwholly    illusory,  unjustified   and contrary to the
\nresolutions of the Government.    The petitioner was a
\nPolice Officer of the rank of Sub-Inspector at that time,
\nand now an Inspector and he has taken the law in his own
\nhands. Instead of exhibiting himself as a law abiding
\nOfficer of the Police department, he has acted contrary
\nto the Government resolutions and has gone to the extent
\nof now saying before this Court that no market rent could
\nhave been realised from him or the amount could have been
\nrealised only after the department filed a civil suit and
\nthe    Court   has  adjudicated   the liability of the
\npetitioner.\n<\/p>\n
15.This petition has been filed by the petitioner
\nunder Article 226 of the Constitution.   The writ under
\nArticle 226 of the Constitution is not available to the
\npetitioner as a matter of course or right.      It is a
\ndiscretionary remedy and in case, the conduct of the
\npetitioner is not free from doubt and if the conduct of
\nthe petitioner is not fair and if the petitioner has not
\ncome up with clean hands before this Court, then this
\nCourt, though the petitioner may have a case on merits,
\nmay decline to give any relief in an appropriate case.\n<\/p>\n
 16.The counsel for the petitioner during the course
\nof arguments admitted that Shri V.J. Desai was a Police
\nOfficer who was his next door neighbour in the Government
\nquarters. He was also having rent free accommodation at
\nAhmedabad.     The question which arises for consideration
\nof this Court is whether the petitioner was really
\nintending and willing to vacate the quarter at Ahmedabad
\nafter he was       allotted   the   quarter   at   District
\nSabarkantha.     The pleadings of the petitioner in this
\nrespect are very material and are to be referred.     After
\ngetting    the    premises in District Sabarkantha, the
\npetitioner came to Ahmedabad and he stated that he has
\nvacated the aforesaid premises.        It appears that the
\npetitioner removed his household articles from          the
\npremises, but the question is whether he has vacated and
\nhanded over the possession of the premises to the
\ndepartment, is a real question. The petitioner admitted
\nthat he had not delivered the possession of the quarter
\nto the department.       What he stated that he was in a
\nhurry, and therefore, he asked his brother-in-law, one
\nShri M.S.      Parmar, to hand over the key of the premises
\nto the person concerned and who forgot to do so.       Very
\nconvenient plea has been taken. Instead of handing over
\nthe key to Mr.        Parmar,   his   brother-in-law,   the
\npetitioner should have delivered the key to the concerned
\nOfficer of the department.        What was the hurry, the
\npetitioner has not disclosed in the Special           Civil
\nApplication.     Then the petitioner stated that “it seems
\nthat thereafter one Shri V.J.     Desai, Police Inspector
\nbroke open the lock of the aforesaid premises and got the
\npossession thereof.      The petitioner has not taken any
\nsteps whatsoever after October, 1981 to see and check up
\nwhether his brother-in-law has handed over the key to the
\ndepartment or not.       The petitioner felt content and
\nsatisfied and relieved of his duty to hand over the
\npossession to the department by delivering the key to
\nnone other than his own brother-in-law.     It is nothing
\nbut only a manufactured story for the purpose of defence.
\nFrom    this    fact, it is clear that the petitioner
\ndeliberately and purposely retained the quarter with him
\nand he was not intending to hand over the possession of
\nthe quarter to the department.\n<\/p>\n
17.From the facts of the case, it necessarily
\nfollows that the petitioner has given the possession of
\nthe quarter to Shri V.J. Desai, Police Officer, one of
\nhis friends, and may be a good neighbour.     The notice
\ndated 6th October, 1982 has been given by the department
\nto the petitioner but he has not handed over the
\npossession of   the quarter to the department.        The
\npetitioner had given an application dated 8-2-1983 to the
\n department in which he stated that he has already vacated
\nthe Government quarter and possession may be taken from
\nShri V.J.    Desai, P.I., who broke open his lock and
\noccupied the premises.     In   the   application     dated
\n8-2-1983, the petitioner stated that he has already
\nvacated the Government quarter. It may be true that he
\nhad taken away his household articles, but that is not
\nthe end of the matter and it cannot be said that the
\npremises has been vacated and possession thereof has been
\nhanded over to the department.       He had shifted his
\nfamily, but still he continued with the possession of the
\npremises. The question is of handing over the possession
\nof the premises to the department and then only it could
\nhave been said that it has been vacated. To keep the
\nlock on the premises cannot be said to be a case of
\nvacation of the premises. The petitioner has stated that
\nthe possession was   with Shri V.J.      Desai.      So he
\npermitted Shri V.J. Desai to enter in the premises and
\nnow when he has been called upon to pay the rent at the
\nmarket value, he has taken the plea that Shri Desai had
\nbroke open the lock of the premises. It is a clear case
\nof collusion in between the petitioner and Shri V.J.
\nDesai, who is now reported to be dead. The petitioner
\nhas manipulated the things to retain the possession of
\nthe quarter, may be for his friend, may be a good
\nneighbour, but the fact is that he has not handed over
\nthe possession of the quarter to the department. The
\npossession has been taken by the department from Shri
\nDesai on 13th June, 1983, but the petitioner cannot be
\nrelieved of his liability to pay the amount of the rent
\nfor the period ending on 13th June, 1983. The petitioner
\nis a person concerned for the illegal retention of the
\npossession of the quarter and the fact          that    the
\npetitioner has not delivered the possession of the
\nquarter to the department clinches the issue.          This
\nconduct of the petitioner itself is sufficient for
\ndisentitling him from getting any relief from this Court.\n<\/p>\n
18.The counsel for the petitioner has placed strong
\nreliance on the decisions of this Court, but those cases
\nare of little help to the petitioner as in none of the
\ncase,   the   question of conduct of the person who
\napproached this    Court   seeking   relief   under   its
\nextraordinary jurisdiction was gone into. More so, when
\nthe resolutions of the      Government   regulating   the
\nretention of the Government quarter after transfer and
\nfor charging of the rent for retention of the quarter
\nafter transfer are there, the liability of the petitioner
\nhas to be determined in accordance with the resolution
\nfor which the department is not required to file a civil
\nsuit.   It is a case where the Government servant cannot
\n be equated with the tenant or the lessee or even the
\nlicensee. He could have retained the quarter till he was
\nposted at a particular place.          It is in lieu of his
\nservices which he renders to the Government, the rent
\nfree accommodation has been given to him. He has no
\nright or justification whatsoever to retain the quarter
\nbeyond permissible limit laid down under the resolution.
\nThe resolution of the Government dated 29th December,
\n1972 is clear and retention of the quarter on transfer by
\na Government servant beyond the permissible period is a
\nmisconduct. It is different matter that the Police
\ndepartment    has tolerated such a gross and serious
\nmisconduct committed on the part of a Police Officer of
\nthe rank of Inspector now, at the relevant time he was of
\nthe rank of Sub-Inspector.         The Director General of
\nPolice has also admitted in the affidavit dated 2nd
\nApril, 1997 that the petitioner is prima-facie guilty of
\ngross misconduct, disobedience of orders and violation of
\nthe rules. In one of the notices, the department has
\nalso called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why
\nthe departmental proceedings should not be initiated
\nagainst him.        The    department has found that the
\npetitioner had not handed over the possession of the
\nblock in question as a part of his duty or in the course
\nof his official duty. It has further been found by the
\ndepartment that he has made a false report of having
\nvacated the said block.         The petitioner, as stated
\nearlier, has not handed over the possession of the
\nquarter to the department. It is not the case of the
\npetitioner that at any point of time his brother-in-law
\nhas given the key of the quarter to the department.     The
\naction was proposed to be taken under the memorandum
\ndated 6-10-1983 by the department, but for all these
\nyears no    action    has    been taken.     No explanation
\nwhatsoever forthcoming for this inaction or omission or
\nslackness on the part of the department except to state
\nthat the matter is sub-judice before this Court.       This
\nCourt has not restrained the department from proceeding
\nagainst the petitioner departmentally for the alleged
\nmisconduct.     However, it is for the department to
\nregulate its own business, but I am constrained to
\nobserve that if the Police Department tolerates its own
\nOfficers    who    commits    such   a   gross  misconduct,
\nindiscipline as well as of making a false statement then
\nwhat will be the fate of the department, is a question
\nfor consideration of the department. If in such matters,
\ndrastic actions are not taken then it will encourage the
\nOfficers to retain the possession. The counsel for the
\nrespondents very fairly conceded that if the proceedings
\ninitiated under the provisions of the Gujarat Public
\nPremises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972,
\n against the Officer for not vacating the Government
\npremises will take years together, but the question does
\narise whether for getting the possession of its own
\nproperty from its own servant on his transfer any
\nproceeding is required to be taken by the department. It
\nis the duty of the Officer to vacate the premises
\nimmediately on transfer and if he does not vacate the
\npremises then he is not a person befitting to the
\nservice.   If this course is adopted then the Officers
\nwould retain the quarter in the city like Ahmedabad as it
\nhas been conceded by the Government advocate before this
\nCourt.   It is for the Government to make necessary
\nprovisions in this respect under the Act, 1972 or in the
\nmatter of Police Officer in the Police Act.\n<\/p>\n
19.The provisions of sec.31 of the Bombay Police Act
\ngives the power to the Government to get the possession
\nof the premises from the Police Officer on his ceasing to
\nbe a Police Officer or whenever the State Government or
\nany Officer authorised by the State Government in this
\nbehalf thinks it necessary and expedient or requires him
\nto do so.\n<\/p>\n
20.The validity of the provisions of sec.31 has not
\nbeen challenged. Though this question is not in issue,
\nbut if we go by the provisions of sec.31 of the Police
\nAct, which is a special Act, the         department    has
\nsufficient powers to get the premises vacated without
\nresorting to the remedies provided under the Act, 1972 or
\nthe civil suit. The petitioner has not controverted the
\naffidavit filed by the Director General. This conduct of
\nthe   petitioner   constitutes   a   grave   and serious
\nmisconduct. This conduct of the petitioner disentitles
\nhim from seeking any relief from this Court and the
\npetition deserves to be dismissed only on this ground.\n<\/p>\n
21.In view of these facts, the other contentions
\nraised by the counsel for the petitioner need not be gone
\ninto.   However, before parting with this judgment it is
\nobserved that it is not the case of the petitioner that
\nin Ahmedabad city the premises of the area which was in
\npossession of the petitioner could have been         made
\navailable on the monthly rent less than what the market
\nrent has been demanded from the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
22.In the result, this Special Civil Application
\nfails and the same is dismissed with costs.          The
\npetitioner is directed to pay Rs.2000\/- by way of costs
\nof this petition to the respondent-State Government. The
\nrespondent-State Government is directed to deposit this
\namount of costs on receipt of the same in the welfare
\n fund which is there for the employees.    The respondent
\nNo.2 is directed to realise this amount of costs at
\nmonthly installments of Rs.100\/- from the salary of the
\npetitioner. Rule discharged. Interim relief granted by
\nthis Court stands vacated.\n<\/p>\n
 **********<\/p>\n
zgs\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs Mr Hl Jani For on 2 September, 2011 Author: S.K.Keshote, IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 5811 of 1984 For Approval and Signature: Hon’ble MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-171400","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nWhether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs Mr Hl Jani For on 2 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mr-hl-jani-for-on-2-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs Mr Hl Jani For on 2 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mr-hl-jani-for-on-2-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-03T23:28:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mr-hl-jani-for-on-2-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mr-hl-jani-for-on-2-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs Mr Hl Jani For on 2 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-03T23:28:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mr-hl-jani-for-on-2-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":4683,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mr-hl-jani-for-on-2-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mr-hl-jani-for-on-2-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mr-hl-jani-for-on-2-september-2011\",\"name\":\"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs Mr Hl Jani For on 2 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-03T23:28:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mr-hl-jani-for-on-2-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mr-hl-jani-for-on-2-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mr-hl-jani-for-on-2-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs Mr Hl Jani For on 2 September, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs Mr Hl Jani For on 2 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mr-hl-jani-for-on-2-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs Mr Hl Jani For on 2 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mr-hl-jani-for-on-2-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-03T23:28:53+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mr-hl-jani-for-on-2-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mr-hl-jani-for-on-2-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs Mr Hl Jani For on 2 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-03T23:28:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mr-hl-jani-for-on-2-september-2011"},"wordCount":4683,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mr-hl-jani-for-on-2-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mr-hl-jani-for-on-2-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mr-hl-jani-for-on-2-september-2011","name":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs Mr Hl Jani For on 2 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-03T23:28:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mr-hl-jani-for-on-2-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mr-hl-jani-for-on-2-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mr-hl-jani-for-on-2-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs Mr Hl Jani For on 2 September, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/171400","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=171400"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/171400\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=171400"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=171400"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=171400"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}