Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 4132
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH
PRASHANT SHRIKANT TAYADE – Appellant
Versus
THE NASHIK MUNICIPAL CORPO. THR. COMMISSIONER AND ORS – Respondent
WP/1752/2023
Mr. G. S. Godbole, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Chetan R. Nagare for the Petitioners in WP Nos. 1750, 1749, 1763, 1754, 1753, 1757, 1756, 1755, 1761, 1760, 1759, 1762, 1752, 1751, 1758 and 1827 of 2023. Mr. Mahendra Agvekar, Shraddha Chavan i/b Sachin Gorwadkar for the Petitioners in WP Nos. 7092, 7095, 7097, 7093, 7081, 7082, 7083 of 2023 Mr. Sanjeev M. Gorwadkar, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Gurudas S. Gorwadkar for the Petitioners in WP Nos. 7101, 7094, 7089, 7098, 7096, 7099, 7013, 7095, 7100, 7102, and 1413 of 2023. Mr. Sandeep Shinde i/b Ergo Juris for the Petitioner in WP Nos. 7079, 7087, 7084, 7086, 7088, 7090, 7091 of 2023. Ms. M. P. Thakur, AGP for the State. Mr. M.L. Patil for Respondents-Corporation.
The Deputy Commissioner must record reasons for eviction orders under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, ensuring procedural fairness in quasi-judicial actions.
Headnote:
Eviction - Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act - [Sections 81-B, 81-F] - The court analyzed the provisions for eviction under the Corporation Act, emphasizing the necessity of a reasoned order and the requirement for the Corporation to substantiate claims of public interest in eviction proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, allottees of land plots from Nashik Municipal Corporation, challenged eviction orders based on show-cause notices citing public interest for road widening. They argued the notices were invalid and lacked evidence.
Issues: Whether the eviction orders were valid given the lack of a fresh show-cause notice and the requirement for a reasoned order under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Deputy Commissioner must provide a reasoned order when exercising quasi-judicial powers under Section 81-B of the Corporation Act, and failure to do so renders the eviction order invalid.
Final Decision: The court quashed the eviction orders and the District Court's judgment, ruling in favor of the Petitioners.
Judgment :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent taken up for final hearing.
2. This group of petitions challenges the Judgment dated 5th January, 2023 passed by the Appellate Court under Section 81-F of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act [for short “the Corporation Act”] preferred against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Nashik Municipal Corporation under Section 81-B of the Corporation Act. Though in some of the Petitions, the date of the show cause notice issued by the Respondent Corporation is different and in some other Petitions there were civil suits filed by the allottees claiming injunction, the individual facts are not required to be taken into consideration. The grounds on which the show cause notices have been issued are identical and identical orders were passed by the Respondent Corporation. Common submissions were advanced and the Petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.
3. By consent Writ Petition No.7079 of 2023 and Writ Petition No. 7099 of 2023 were taken up as lead Petitions and referred to during the arguments.
FACTUAL MATRIX :
4. The Petitioners claim to be allottees and lessees of open plot of land of differing sizes owned by Nashik Municipal Council, now Nashik Municipal Corporation, situated at Survey No.489 having Final Plot No.282 and are carrying on business since the year 1973 from the shops constructed thereon. The Petitioners claim to be regularly paying property taxes in respect of the said plots and are also having individual electricity connections and the shop establishment license etc.
5. In the year 1992 as there was an apprehension of demolition of the suit premises at the hands of Nashik Municipal Corporation, some of the Petitioners in these group of Petitions had instituted civil proceedings seeking declaration of occupation and for perpetual injunction and the plaint was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. The suits came to be restored by the Appellate Court and the order of restoration was challenged before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 30th June, 2016 in view of the pendency of the challenge to the notices which were in the meantime issued by the Corporation.
6. In or about the year 2015, the Respondent-Corporation issued show-cause notices which in some cases were issued on 22nd May, 2015 and in some cases on 2nd June, 2015 to the individual allottees under Section 81-B,229,230,231,232 and 478 of the Corporation Act directing the Petitioner to show cause against the proposed action of eviction as the subject premises was required for road widening and making available necessary development infrastructure in public interest. The Petitioners submitted their individual explanations to the show-cause notice issued by the Respondent-Corporation inter alia contending that the premises was not situated on the junction or in the way of national highway but is located on service road and there is no proposal for widening of service road.
7. The Respondents fixed the date of hearing and adjournment was sought by the Petitioners and on the adjourned date the Petitioners were absent. Vide order dated 4th December, 2015, the Respondents passed order of eviction for the reason stated in the show cause notice.
8. The order of eviction came to be challenged by the Petitioners under Section 81-F of the Corporation Act before the District Court, Nashik. Vide judgment dated 30th May 2019, the District Court allowed the Appeal holding that there was no documentary evidence produced by the Corporation to support the reason stated in the show cause notice and mere contention that the premises is required in public interest is not sufficient. It further held that the notice dated 4th December, 2015 was illegal and invalid. It further held that there was no reasoned order passed by the Commissioner recording his satisfaction that the premises is required in public interest, that no reasonable opportunity of being heard was given to the Pet
