Public interest and statutory obligations can outweigh individual rights of licensees in urban development cases.

Oral Judgment : -

1. It is settled law that if a project undertaken by the local body is beneficial for larger public, inconvenience to small number of people is to be accepted. Thus, proposition of law is that individual interest or for that matter smaller public interest must yield to the larger public interest. Therefore, inconvenience to some, should be bypassed for a larger interest or cause of the society.

. Here is the case, where retail vendors, who were permitted to install small stalls along the road, abutting Railway Station, in Suburbs of Mumbai, have declined to shift their stalls, at alternate locations, offered by the local Authority. As also they are not willing to accept compensation offered by the local body – in lieu of their stalls. Reason being, the alternate sites offered were not ‘suitable’. Facts of the case, are like this. Appellant is a registered Association of stall- holders. Its’ members claim that Standing Committee of the Corporation vide Resolution dated 17th August, 1983 authorized them, to install stalls of a specified size along S.V.P. Road, abutting Mulund Railway Station, between west side of Railway Station Gate up to Police Chowki. Indisputably stalls abutting the Railway Station had caused the situation like, water-logging in past in rainy season. Thus, to prevent water logging in Railway Station, Respondents decided to construct storm water drain, to cause the water run-out. As also since the suit stalls are constructed along a road, having large volume of vehicular traffic, Corporation decided to shift stall-holders, to alternate sites to widen the width of the road. It all, necessitated the Corporation to issue notices on, 17th August, 2017, to the members of the Appellant-Association, under Section 485 and 485A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act . These notices were challenged in suit no. 2438/2017. Whereupon, the learned Judge, City Civil Court, on 6th November, 2017 passed the following order.

“Notice under Section 485 and 485(A) of the MMC Act. Both these sections provides for how service of notice is to be effected and the power of Commissioner to call for information as to the Ownership of the premises. As such it appears that the plaintiff in the suit is challenging the said notice, when infact the concerned authority has not yet considered the documents and has not come to any conclusion. The concerned Officer present before the Court submitted that the further course of action would be considering the documents, preparing inventories, passing orders and draft annextures will be prepared and will be communicated to the concerned. May that it be, it appears that the plff has filed the suit at premature stage. Hence the N/ m as well as suit can be disposed of on certain conditions. The plaintiff shall submit all the relevant documents within a week. The concerned authorities after considering the same and following the procedure will intimate the plaintiff in writing the said order. It is also submitted by the concerned Officer that plaintiff will be given hearing after publication of Annexure II. If the final order/ speaking order is adverse to the plaintiff then no coercive action will be taken for period of one week. This N/m is disposed of accordingly. N/m be registered for statistical purpose.”

2. Thus, the learned Court, directed the members of Association to submit all relevant document to Municipal Authority for its’ consideration. Pursuant to that, Corporation held some members of Appellant- A