Upholding Existing Precedent, the Uttarakhand High Court Confirms That Termination Notices Alone Do Not Permit Physical Interference with a Licensee’s Possession and Holds Binding Value for Subordinate Courts
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | SPA/174/2015 of SMT. VIBHA BISHT, PROPRIETOR M/S NEW SAI MEDICOSE, ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE RISHIKESH Vs UNION OF INDIA |
| CNR | UKHC010019362015 |
| Date of Registration | 29-04-2015 |
| Decision Date | 18-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashish Naithani |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Bench | Division Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms |
| Type of Law | Public Premises Act / Administrative law |
| Questions of Law | Whether a licensor can interfere with a licensee’s possession of public premises upon issuing only a termination notice, without obtaining an eviction order under the Public Premises Act? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that under the licence deed and the Public Premises Act, termination notices alone do not empower the licensor to seize or close the licensed premises. An eviction order must be obtained from the prescribed authority under the Public Premises Act before any physical interference. Until such eviction order is passed, the licensee’s right to peaceful possession continues, and the licensee remains entitled to raise all legal objections to the notices. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The licence for operating a pharmacy at the AIIMS Rishikesh was terminated on allegations of selling substandard and substituted medicines. No eviction proceedings under the Public Premises Act were initiated, yet the licensor attempted to seal the shop. The Single Judge restrained the licensor from interfering with possession until due process was followed. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, upholding that restraint. |
| Citations | 2025:UHC:7243-DB |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that under the Public Premises Act a licensor cannot physically seize or seal premises merely by terminating a licence; a formal eviction order is mandatory.
- Affirms that until such an eviction order is passed, the licensee retains the right to peaceful possession and may challenge the validity of termination notices.
- Confirms that subordinate courts must enforce the requirement of due process under the Public Premises Act before permitting any interference with the licensee’s possession.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
-
Licence Deed and Public Premises Act Interplay
- The licence deed provided that upon termination, the licensor could seek eviction only under the Public Premises Act.
-
Requirement of an Eviction Order
- Mere issuance of termination notices without obtaining an eviction order does not confer any right to seal or take physical possession.
-
Right to Defend
- Until the prescribed authority under the Public Premises Act passes an eviction order, the licensee may invoke all available defences, including challenges to notice validity.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Licensee):
- Challenged physical interference and sealing of the pharmacy without due process.
- Asserted that no eviction proceedings under the Public Premises Act had been initiated.
Respondent (Licensor / AIIMS Authorities):
- Contended termination was justified on grounds of selling substandard and substituted medicines.
- Maintained right to retake possession after licence termination.
Factual Background
A pharmacy shop at AIIMS Rishikesh was run under a licence deed. AIIMS issued notices terminating the licence, alleging sale of substandard and substituted medicines. Despite no eviction order under the Public Premises Act, authorities attempted to seal and take possession. The Single Judge restrained such interference; on intra-court appeal, the Division Bench upheld the requirement of following due process under the Public Premises Act before any eviction or sealing.
Statutory Analysis
- Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971:
- Eviction proceedings must be initiated before the prescribed authority; termination notices alone are insufficient.
- Rights and remedies under the Act are exclusive for removal of unauthorized occupants from public premises.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinions were tendered.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural guidelines or innovations; reaffirms established requirement to follow the Public Premises Act for eviction.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed
Citations
- 2025:UHC:7243-DB (High Court of Uttarakhand, Division Bench) paragraph references as per reported judgment.