1. Context and Background

   • The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) initiated eviction proceedings under Section 105B of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, targeting retired employees or their legal heirs who continued occupying municipal quarters.
   • A batch of petitions was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, challenging the eviction process and alleging bias and procedural lapses.

2. High Court's Decision

   • Held that the Inquiry Officer was duly authorized to conduct eviction inquiries, dismissing the respondents’ challenge regarding the absence of regulations under Section 105H.
   • However, it framed specific points for determination in the pending inquiry proceedings, effectively altering the procedure under Chapter V-A of the Act, which is a self-contained code for eviction.

3. Supreme Court's Ratio Decidendi

   • Judicial Overreach: The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by intervening in the inquiry process, which is administrative and quasi-judicial in nature.
   • Scope of Writ Jurisdiction: Decisions of civil courts are not subject to certiorari under Article 226 but can be challenged under Article 227 for supervisory purposes in exceptional circumstances, which were absent here.
   • Institutional Bias Allegation: The claim of bias against the Inquiry Officer, being an employee of MCGM, was dismissed. The Inquiry Officer was deemed to act independently in a quasi-judicial capacity.
   • Proceedings Without Regulations: Non-framing of regulations under Section 105H does not stall eviction proceedings, provided principles of natural justice are adhered to.

4. Outcome

   • The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s framing of issues for the Inquiry Officer, allowing the eviction process to proceed in accordance with the Act and judicial precedents.

Paragraph-Wise Main Facts

1. Introduction and Parties

• The appellants: MCGM and others.
• Respondents: Retired municipal employees and their legal heirs occupying municipal staff quarters.

2. Litigation Timeline

• Eviction notices issued under Section 105B in 2007.
• Multiple rounds of litigation followed, challenging the process and invoking Articles 226 and 227.

3. High Court Judgment

• Upheld the Inquiry Officer's authority but framed unnecessary and legally unsound points for determination.

4. Supreme Court Analysis

• Criticized the High Court for overstepping its jurisdiction and interfering prematurely in administrative proceedings.
• Dismissed claims of institutional bias and held that eviction proceedings can continue without regulations under Section 105H.

5. Supreme Court Directions

• Directed the Inquiry Officer to proceed with the eviction inquiry, allowing evidence from both sides while adhering to natural justice principles.

Relevant Acts and Sections:

• Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888

  • Section 105B: Procedure for eviction of unauthorized occupants of public premises.
  • Section 105H: Provides for framing regulations for eviction proceedings (discretionary).

• Indian Limitation Act, 1963

  • Section 3 and Article 137: Discussed but held inapplicable to quasi-judicial eviction proceedings.

• Constitution of India

  • Articles 226 and 227: Scope of writ jurisdiction and supervisory authority over subordinate courts.

• Transfer of Property Act, 1882

  • Section 53A: Raised as a defense by respondents, asserting rights based on part performance of an agreement.

Ratio Decidendi:

• High Courts should not interfere in administrative inquiries unless there is a gross miscarriage of justice.
• Inquiry Officers, even if employees of the initiating authority, act independently in a quasi-judicial capacity, ensuring fairness and justice.
• Procedural delays caused by unnecessary interference are detrimental to the public interest and governance.

Subjects:

Eviction proceedings under municipal law; judicial overreach; writ jurisdiction.
Judicial review, natural justice, municipal law, eviction, public premises.