Heard heard the learned Counsel and perused the petition. No foundation has been raised factually of any overt action taken by the respondent contrary to law for dispossessing the petitioners from the premises in question of which they allege to be in lawful possession. It cannot be assumed on mere allegation that 'the respondent are trying to dispossess malafidely and therefore the petitioners are compelled to move the present petition' that the act of threat of eviction without any authority of law has been held out to the petitioners. In absence of any such foundation the Court would not be justified to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, at this stage. On the contrary presumption is that if the petitioners are to be evicted from the site in their possession, the appropriate authority will adopt due process and act in accordance with law. If any such threat of illegal dispossession is held out the petitioner can always seek his remedy too in accordance with law. The petition is, therefore, summarily rejected at present.
Date:-28-8-1996.(R. Balia, J.)