Delhi High Court – Orders
Shri Gopal Kumar Mishra vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 23 May, 2026
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C)7425/2026, CM APPL.36125/2026, CM APPL.36126/2026
SHRI GOPAL KUMAR MISHRA
.....Appellant
Through: Mr Yogeshwar Krishna Purohit, Mr
Utkarsh Kachhawahaand Mr Mayank
Chaplot, Advocates.
versus
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, Sr. Advocate
along with Mr. Dhruv Yadav,
Advocate for R-1.
Mr Rajat Mathur for Respondent no.2
/ Estate Officer.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
ORDER
% 23.05.2026
1. Writ Petition under Article 226 Constitution of India read with
Section 151 CPC has been filed against the Order dated 22.05.2026,
whereby the learned Principle District Judge, Patiala House Courts, New
Delhi has dismissed the Appeal under Section 9 of the Public Premises
(Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 against the Order dated
24.04.2026 of the Estate Officer, Government of Andhra Pradesh directing
the eviction of the Petitioner from the premises, under Section 5 of the
Public Premises Act.
2. The facts as averred by the Petitioner, are that Shri Shiv
Venkateshwar Mandir situated within Andhra Pradesh Bhawan Complex,
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/05/2026 at 20:31:53
Ashoka Road, New Delhi has been in existence since around the year 1970
and there exists no similar temple in the nearby vicinity. There are
numerous devotees regularly visiting the temple and worshiping and
offering daily religious rituals.
3. In the year 1980, Late Shri Kumudanand Mishra, father of the
Petitioner Gopal Kumar Mishra was appointed as the first Pujari of the
temple. Thereafter, with the assistance of Shri B.B. Khanna and Shri
Chanchal Singh, members of Andhra Pradesh Bhawan and with the consent
and knowledge of the then Authorities, the present structure of the temple
came to be constructed. Adjoining there-to, residential portions comprising
four rooms/ huts were also constructed around the temple premises, wherein
the family of the Petitioner has been continuously residing since 1980 and
carrying out religious services and maintenance of the Temple.
4. In order to manage and look after the affairs of the temple, Sri
Venkateshwar Mandir Sewak Samiti, a Society was registered before the
Registrar Office, Delhi on 28.07.2009.
5. After the demise of Late Shri Kumudanand Mishra on 20.03.2015, the
Petitioner Shri Gopal Kumr Mishra was unanimously accepted and
appointed as the Pujari of the temple by the devotees and the then
Authorities of the Andhra Pradesh Bhawan. Since then, the Petitioner has
continuously performed religious duties and has been in possession of the
temple premises.
6. After retirement and transfer of earlier Officers who were associated
with the temple since its inception, certain officials of the Establishment
started harassing the Petitioner and his family and repeatedly interfered with
functioning of the temple, including repeated disconnection of water and
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/05/2026 at 20:31:53
electricity supply. Over a period of time, multiple attempts were made by
the Respondent to demolish the temple structure and heavy machinery
including JCB equipment, were brought near the temple premises for
demolition.
7. Left with no option, Petitioner filed W.P(C) No.6336/2025 seeking
protection of the temple premises and restraint against illegal demolition.
The status quo in favour of the Petitioner was granted on 12.05.2025.
Thereafter, the Petition was disposed of vide Order dated 19.05.2025,
though the Respondents were directed to restore water and electricity supply
to the temple premises, upon the Representation submitted by the Petitioner.
8. The Petitioner made a formal Representation dated 21.05.2025 for
restoration of electricity and water supply which was not done, despite
repeated requests and the directions of this Court.
9. The Respondents then initiated proceedings under Public Premises
Act by issuing Show Cause Notice dated 02.07.2025 under Section 4, 5, 7
and 12 of the Act. It is claimed that the Show Cause Notice was vague,
arbitrary and devoid of material particulars, in as much as it failed to
disclose any specific grounds, basis of unauthorized occupation, details of
alleged encroachment, supporting documents or any material particulars.
10. A detailed Reply dated 15.07.2025 was submitted by the Petitioner
placing on record the complete history of the temple, continuous possession
since 1980, the role of Late father as Pujari and existence of the temple
structure and the mala fide conduct of the Authorities.
11. Second Show Cause Notice dated 21.07.2025 was issued calling upon
the Petitioner for personal hearing, which was accorded on 31.07.2025. The
matter was reserved by the learned Estate Officer, but thereafter, another
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/05/2026 at 20:31:53
Show Cause Notice dated 21.01.2026 was issued, again reiterating the same
allegations.
12. It was during the proceedings before the Appellate Authority, that it
was brought to the notice of the Petitioner that vide communication dated
NIL, the earlier Estate Officer had recused himself from the proceedings, but
this fact was never communicated to the Petitioner. The repeated initiation
of the proceedings on the same allegations after reserving it for Orders,
clearly spells out the procedural arbitrariness, abuse of process and complete
non-application of mind.
13. Pursuant to the second Show Cause Notice dated 21.01.2026, the
proceedings were conducted in a summary and expeditious manner and the
arguments were concluded on 26.02.2026. However, the Order was not
passed within fifteen days as required under Public Premises Act, but the
final Eviction Order was made only on 24.04.2026.
14. It is submitted that while passing the Eviction Order, it has not been
appreciated that a similarly situation religious structures including
Masjid/Mosque, are situated in the same complex and the persons occupying
adjoining premises have not been proceeded against, under the Act.
15. Aggrieved by the Eviction Order dated 24.04.2026, the Petitioner had
preferred Appeal No.PP07.2026 under Section 9 before the Principle District
Judge, Patiala House Courts, who vide the impugned Order dated
22.05.2026 has, dismissed the Appeal.
16. The Order of the learned Principle District Judge is challenged on the
grounds as under :
(a) that the Show Cause Notice dated 02.07.2025 issued
under Section 4, 5, 7 and 12, failed to disclose any specificThis is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/05/2026 at 20:31:53
allegations, material particulars, basis of unauthorized occupation,
nature of alleged encroachment or any supporting material;
(b) that the matter was duly heard by the learned Estate
Officer and reserved on 31.07.2025, but Order was passed for
more than six months, reflecting the arbitrariness and abuse of the
process of law. Once the matter was reserved after final hearing,
no subsequent Show Cause Notice could have been issued, on
021.01.2026;
(c) that even thereafter, the arguments were concluded on
26.02.2026, despite which the final Order was passed only on
24.04.2026 i.e. beyond the period of 15 days, as mandated under
the Act;
(d) that the various retaliatory actions have been taken
against the Petitioner for demolition and his eviction without
following due procedure of law. He has been selectively targeted,
while no action has been taken against the similarly placed
persons in respect of similarly situated religious structures;
(e) that the fundamental principles of natural justice and fair
procedures have not been followed.
17. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned Order dated 22.05.2026 is
liable to be set aside.
18. The learned Senior Advocate for Respondent No.1 on advance
Notice, has appeared and has taken a preliminary objection that the Writ
Petition under Article 226 is not maintainable. Reliance is placed on Life
Insurance Corporation of India vs. Nandini J. Shah and Others (2018) 15
SCC 356.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/05/2026 at 20:31:53
19. It is further submitted that the previous Estate Officer abstained from
passing any Order after reserving it on 31.07.2025, because of the
allegations of bias leveled against him. A new Estate Officer was appointed,
in Order to allay the perceived bias, against the erstwhile Estate Officer.
20. Furthermore, the contention in regard to non-passing of the Order
within fifteen days, has been considered in detail by the learned Principle
District Judge, in the impugned Order. In the end, it is contended that there
is no locus of the Petitioner to continue to reside in the premises and the
Eviction Order has been rightly passed against him.
Submissions heard and record perused.
21. A technical objection has been taken by the Respondent to the
maintainability of the Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of
India and has claimed that this Order was amenable to challenge only under
Article 227 Constitution of India.
22. Though, this submissions has been made correctly, but the hyper
technicalities of law cannot be permitted to defeat the substantive rights of
the parties. The present Writ Petition is deemed to be under Article 227
Constitution of India.
23. On merits, it may be noted that as per the submissions of the
Petitioner himself, he was offering the prayers in the temple within the
Complex of Andhra Pradesh Bhawan and in that capacity, had been residing
in a room constructed near the temple.
24. His father and thereafter, he may have been offering the prayers in the
temple, but that in itself does not create any right, title or interest to continue
to occupy the premises. The Petitioner was only been permitted to occupy
the premises, cannot claim any permanent locus to continue to occupy the
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/05/2026 at 20:31:53
premises. It is pertinent to mention that during the course of the arguments,
the learned Counsel for the Petitioner himself had stated that some new
construction is to be carried out in Andhra Pradesh Bhawan, because of
which the existing construction of the rooms, is to be demolished. Once,
there is a larger purpose for which the premises are required.
25. The Respondent had duly followed the due procedure by initiating the
proceedings under Public Premises Act and the Eviction Order has been
passed therein, in accordance with law.
26. The second contention that the first Estate Officer did not pass an
Order for six months, has been adequately explained. He had recused
himself on account of objection of bias taken against him and a new Estate
Officer was appointed. This explains that the Respondent duly addressed
the allegation of bias, against the Estate Officer. It also explains why the
proceedings did not proceed over a period of six months. There is no merit
in this contention of the Petitioner.
27. The third contention raised by the Petitioner was that the Order of
Eviction was not pronounced within fifteen days of reserving it, by the
Estate Officer. However, this has been sufficiently explained by the learned
Principle District Judge in the impugned Order, wherein it has been
observed that the period of fifteen days under Section 5(1) of PP Act is
“directory” and not “mandatory”; merely because the Order was passed
beyond fifteen days, does not make it illegal.
28. There is no merit in the Petition.
29. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that he may be given on
month’s time to evict the premises.
30. In view of the submissions made, the Petitioner is directed to submit
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/05/2026 at 20:31:53
his Undertaking to vacate the premises within three days i.e by 26.05.2026
before the learned Registrar General of this Court subject to which the
Respondent shall not take any action against the Petitioner for one month.
In case the Petitioner fails to furnish the Undertaking or vacate the premises
within one month, the Respondent shall be at liberty to evict the Petitioner in
accordance with law.
31. The Petition is disposed of accordingly along with the pending
Application(s).
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J
MAY 23, 2026
va
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/05/2026 at 20:31:53
