JUDGMENT

MISRA, J.:— These three appeals by certificate are directed against a common judgment of the Gujarat High Court dated 15th of Nov. 1969. By the said Judgment the High Court allowed three petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution, two of them challenging S. 233 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963, and the third one challenging S. 193-A of the Gujarat Village Panchayats Act. 1961.

2. The provisions of S. 233 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act are identical with provisions of S. 193-A of the Gujarat Village Panchayats Act. To appreciate the point involved in the case it is necessary to read S. 233 :

"233. (1) If the Chief Officer is satisfied-

(a) that the person authorised to occupy any premises belonging to the municipality (hereinafter referred to as "the municipal premises") as a tenant or otherwise has-

(i) not paid rent lawfully due from him, in respect of such premises for a period of more than two months, or

(ii) sublet without the permission of the municipality, the whole or any part of such premises, or

(iii) otherwise acted in contravention of any of the terms, express or implied, under which he is authorised to occupy such premises, or

(b) that any person is in unauthorised occupation of any municipal premises, the Chief Officer may, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, by notice served (i) by post or (ii) by affixing a copy of it on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of such premises, or (iii) in such other manner as may be provided in the rules made by the State Government, order that that person as well as any other person who may be in occupation of the whole or any part of the premises, shall vacate them within one month of the date of the service of the notice.

(2) Before an order under sub-section, (1) is made against any person the Chief Officer shall inform the person by notice in writing of the grounds on which the proposed order is to be made and give him a reasonable opportunity of tendering an explanation and producing evidence if any, and to show cause why such order should not be made, within a period to be specified in such notice. If such person makes an application to the Chief Officer for extension of the period specified in the notice the Chief Officer may grant the same on such terms as to payment and recovery of the amount claimed in the notice as it deems fit. Any written statement put in by such person and documents produced in pursuance. of such notice shall be filed with the record of the case and such person shall be entitled to appeal before the authority proceeding in this connection by advocate, attorney or pleader. Such notice in writing shall be served in the manner provided for service of notice under subsection (1).

... ... ... ... ...

3. The pattern of facts in all these appeals is similar. We, therefore, propose to give the facts of Appeal No. 1447 of 1970. Dharamdas Viranand, respondent No. 1, had erected a cabin on municipal footpath near sub-station on public road. A resolution was passed on 5th of Feb., 1966 by the Upleta Municipality to get the said premises vacated. Pursuant to the resolution respondent No. I was served with a notice dated 4th Dec., 1967 showing cause why he should not be evicted from the premises. In reply thereto respondent No. 1 sent a letter dated 6th Jan., 1968 stating therein that he was not in unauthorised occupation and he should be allowed to retain the cabin on the said premises. As respondent No. 1 failed to vacate the said premises and handover the same to the municipality, the Chief Officer of the Upleta Municipality by his order dated 28th of May, 1968 directed respondent No. 1 to vacate the same and hand over possession to the Municipality by 30th of June, 1968. Feeling aggrieved, respondent No. 1 filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the notices.

4. The main ground of challenge is that S. 233 of the Act is violative of the equal protection clause contained in Art. 14