Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Smt. Ratty Phiroze Javeri and Shri Dinshaw Jehangir Daruvala, filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court challenging two show-cause notices issued by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The first notice was issued under Section 4 of the Act dated 15th March 1990, and the second under sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the same Act bearing the same date. The petitioners also challenged the constitutional validity of the Act itself. During the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the Supreme Court had already upheld the constitutional validity of the Act, he had nothing to say on that issue. Regarding the notice under Section 7(3), the counsel for the respondents (LIC) requested permission to withdraw that notice with liberty to issue a fresh notice, which the court allowed. As for the notice under Section 4, the petitioners' counsel did not press the challenge on merits. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition as not pressed, with no order as to costs. The judgment was delivered by Justices R.M. Lodha and J.P. Devadhar on 17th June 2005.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Validity of Statute - Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - Constitutional validity of the Act was challenged but the petitioners' counsel conceded that the Supreme Court has upheld the Act, thus no argument was advanced. (Para 3)
B) Public Premises - Eviction - Show-Cause Notice - Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - Notice under Section 4 was not challenged on merits; the petition was dismissed as not pressed regarding that notice. (Para 5)
C) Public Premises - Damages - Notice under Section 7(3) - Section 7(3) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - The respondent sought and was permitted to withdraw the notice under Section 7(3) with liberty to issue a fresh notice. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the show-cause notices issued under Sections 4 and 7(3) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 are valid and whether the Act is constitutionally valid.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Constitutional validity of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act
- 1971 upheld by Supreme Court
- Withdrawal of notice under Section 7(3) with liberty
- Notice under Section 4 of the Act not challenged on merits
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (05) 242
WRIT PETITION NO.1756 OF 1990
R.M. Lodha, J.P. Devadhar
Mr. F.P. Pooniwala with Ms. B. D’Souza i/by M/s. Mehta & Girdharlal for the petitioners; Mr. C.J. Sawant with Ms. Snehal Paranjpe i/by M/s. Little & Co. for the respondent No.1
Smt. Ratty Phiroze Javeri and Shri Dinshaw Jehangir Daruvala
Life Insurance Corporation of India and Shri G.W. Arora
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging show-cause notices under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to impugn two show-cause notices and challenge the constitutional validity of the Act.
Filing Reason
Petitioners were served with show-cause notices under Sections 4 and 7(3) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 by the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
Issues
Whether the show-cause notices under Sections 4 and 7(3) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 are valid.
Whether the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 is constitutionally valid.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners' counsel submitted that the constitutional validity of the Act having been upheld by the Supreme Court, he had nothing to say on that issue.
Respondents' counsel sought permission to withdraw the notice under Section 7(3) with liberty to issue a fresh notice.
Petitioners' counsel did not press the challenge to the notice under Section 4 on merits.
Ratio Decidendi
The constitutional validity of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 having been upheld by the Supreme Court, the challenge to the Act was not pressed. The notice under Section 7(3) was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to issue a fresh notice. The challenge to the notice under Section 4 was not pressed on merits.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the constitutional validity of the said Act having been upheld by the Supreme Court, he does not have anything to say in this regard.
As regards the notice issued to the petitioners under sub-section (3) of section 7 of the Act of 1971, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the said notice may be permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to the respondents to issue a fresh notice.
Insofar as the notice under section 4 of the Act is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioners does not press the challenge on merits.
Procedural History
The writ petition was filed in 1990 challenging two show-cause notices dated 15th March 1990 under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The matter was heard on 17th June 2005, when the court disposed of the petition.
Acts & Sections
- Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971: 4, 7(3)
