JUDGMENT:- All petitioners before this Court occupy as tenants the shops in a Supermarket situated in busy crowded market area known as Sitabuldi in Nagpur. The supermarket is owned by Respondents i.e. Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) is a local authority constituted for municipal administration of Nagpur City under the provisions of City of Nagpur Corporation Act, ] 948 (hereinafter referred to as "the NMC Act" For short). It is also a planing authority for Nagpur under Maharashtra Regional and Town Planing Act, 1961. The NMC wants to replace the said supermarket by a modem shopping mall with a view to remove traffic problems or parking difficulties. Its Standing Committee has resolved accordingly NMC then issued show cause notices under Section 76-B(2) of the NMC Act to the petitioners who filed their replies to it. Respondent no.2 heard them and rejected their objections on 16/3/2007. Rejection was communicated to petitioners by the market superintendent of the NMC on 20/3/2007. They then tiled appeal as provided for under Section 76-F of NMC Act before the District Judge and DJ-3 dismissed their appeals by common order dated 3/10/2007. All these writ petitions question this order in appeal as also earlier order of ADMC dated 16/3/2007. The matters cane to be adjourned from time to time as efforts were being made to dispose of them finally at admission stage. Previous Bench fixed the matters at 2.30 P.M. and then the matters were placed before me. I have heard Shri. B. B. Mehadia, Shri. Masood Sharif, Shri. Neeraj Patil, Shri. Anand Parchure, learned Counsel for respective petitioners and Shri. S. M. Puranik, learned Counsel for NMC finally by making Rule returnable forthwith by consent.

2. Shri. B. B. Mehadia, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.4565/2007 has tendered synopsis and invited attention to events stated therein to urge that a ready format is used mechanically to issue show cause notices (SCN) in the matter without bothering to IInd out requirements of Section 76-8 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948. He advanced the lead arguments which are adopted by other learned Counsel who then made additional submissions. Other learned Counsel include Shri. Anand Parchure, Shri. Masood Sharifand Shri. Neeraj Patil.

3. According to Shri. Mehadia, learned counsel the notice under Section 76-8 is vague as it does not specify grounds for satisfaction of the Commissioner, no public interest is apparent or mentioned and as proforma of SCN is used, the model clauses not necessary in the facts of present matters are retained. Thus, the grounds on which the show cause is based are not communicated to the notice at all. The law contemplates an effective opportunity of hearing that too, before the decision to evict is taken. Because of these lacunae said hearing is denied to the petitioners. Support is being taken from the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported at (1980)3 SCC 1 : AIR 1980 SC 1157 "Nasir Ahmed Vs. Assistant Custodian General, Evacuee Property, V.P., Lucknow". The SCN and consequential order are therefore bad. (2001) 1 SCC 291 : AIR 2001 SC 250 "Food Corporation of India Vs. State of Punjab" is being relied upon by him. The I1nal order after hearing passed by the Additional Municipal Commissioner (ADM C) is stated to be containing grounds even beyond SCN. The judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported at (1994)4 SCC 269 : 1994 AIR SCW 2923 "Indian Nut Products Vs. Union of India" and of Hon'ble Gujrat High Court at AIR 2003 Guj. 332 - Shreeji Mailing Service, Ahmedabad Vs. Govt. of India and others, are pressed into service to highlight the importance of the requirement of satisfaction to be recorded and relevance of material then looked into. AIR 1967 SC 295 - "Barium Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Company Law Board" is also cited to drive home the point. Not giving of one month time to vacate in his order by ADMC is also given as an instance of non-application of mind. The learned Counsel states that later on

Click Here to Read the rest of this document