Directory statutory time-limit in government accommodation allotment scheme upheld, preserving validity of allotment despite notice non-compliance.

A statutory time-limit in a beneficial allotment scheme was treated as directory rather than mandatory because the scheme aimed to protect government servant-tenants and sustain public work; non-compliance with the outgoing tenant's fifteen-day notice requirement therefore did not invalidate a later allotment order. The court also construed the direction that allotment be made "under intimation to the landlord" as requiring notice of the allotment, not a separate seven-day prior notice before allotment. The landlord's interests were held sufficiently protected by the ability to object and by the power to cancel an allotment for adequate reasons, so the allotment to another government servant remained valid.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether failure by the outgoing Government servant to give fifteen days' previous notice in writing to the landlord and the District Magistrate invalidated the District Magistrate's allotment order. (ii) Whether the District Magistrate was bound to give seven days' notice to the landlord before allotting the building to another Government servant.

Issue (i): Whether failure by the outgoing Government servant to give fifteen days' previous notice in writing to the landlord and the District Magistrate invalidated the District Magistrate's allotment order.

Analysis: The statutory question turned on whether the time requirement in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 11 was mandatory or directory. The Court applied the settled principle that the use of the word "shall" is not ative by itself, and that the character of the provision must be gathered from the scheme, object, consequences of non-compliance, and the extent of prejudice likely to be caused. The provision was held to form part of a beneficial legislative scheme intended to protect Government servant-tenants and ensure continuation of public work. Reading the clause as mandatory would defeat that object and produce hardship to incoming Government servants who have no control over the outgoing tenant or the District Magistrate. The proviso, which deems the landlord to be put in possession only when no allotment order is made, was treated as indicating that non-compliance with the time requirement does not nullify a later allotment.

Conclusion: The failure to give fifteen days' previous notice did not invalidate the allotment order.

Issue (ii): Whether the District Magistrate was bound to give seven days' notice to the landlord before allotting the building to another Government servant.

Analysis: The phrase "under intimation to the landlord" was construed as qualifying the making of the allotment order, not as creating a separate condition of seven days' prior notice to the landlord. The Court held that the statutory language only requires that the allotment be made within a week of receipt of the outgoing tenant's notice and that the landlord be informed of the allotment. The landlord's interests were considered protected by the opportunity to object and by the statutory power to cancel an allotment for adequate reasons.

Conclusion: The District Magistrate was not required to give seven days' notice to the landlord before making the allotment.

Final Conclusion: The time-limit requirements in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 11 were held to be directory, not mandatory, and the writ petition failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory time-limit is imposed on a public authority in a beneficial and public-duty oriented scheme, non-compliance does not invalidate the act if the legislative object would be defeated and the statute does not clearly make validity dependent on strict observance of the time requirement.

---