Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Madhukar Shankar Parsekar, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court challenging an order dated 24th May 2006 passed by the Administrator & Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai. The impugned order directed the petitioner to vacate his premises and hand over possession of the land occupied by his structure to respondent No.5 (Global Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.) and to shift to alternative accommodation provided by respondent No.5. The petitioner raised three grounds of challenge: first, that the lower appellate authority did not give him sufficient opportunity of hearing as his request for adjournment was rejected; second, that the original order was issued by an officer not authorised under law; and third, that the alternative accommodation offered was only 225 sq.ft. whereas his structure occupied 1460 sq.ft. The court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the petition. On the first ground, the court observed that the petitioner had sought adjournment on the ground of illness but did not produce any medical certificate, and therefore the authority was not bound to grant adjournment. On the second ground, the court noted that the petitioner failed to place any material on record to show that the officer who issued the original order lacked authority. On the third ground, the court held that the issue of area of alternative accommodation was pending before the lower appellate authority and no final decision had been rendered, and therefore the petitioner could agitate the same before the appropriate forum. The court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Opportunity of Hearing - Petitioner sought adjournment on ground of illness but failed to produce medical certificate - Lower appellate authority not obliged to grant adjournment in absence of sufficient cause - Held that no violation of principles of natural justice (Paras 1-3).
B) Slum Rehabilitation - Jurisdiction - Challenge to Authority of Officer - Petitioner contended that original order was issued by an officer not authorised under law - However, no material placed on record to substantiate the claim - Held that mere assertion without evidence cannot be accepted (Paras 2-3).
C) Slum Rehabilitation - Alternative Accommodation - Adequacy - Petitioner claimed his structure occupied 1460 sq.ft. but was offered only 225 sq.ft. - Court noted that the matter was pending before lower appellate authority and no final determination had been made - Held that the issue of area could be agitated before the appropriate forum (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned order passed by the Administrator & Divisional Commissioner is vitiated due to (i) denial of sufficient opportunity of hearing, (ii) lack of authority of the officer who issued the original order, and (iii) inadequacy of alternative accommodation.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- opportunity of hearing
- adjournment
- slum rehabilitation
- alternative accommodation
- jurisdiction of officer
- area of accommodation
Case Details
2006 LawText (BOM) (10) 116
WRIT PETITION NO.3732 OF 2006
Shri Rajesh D. Bindra for the Petitioner; Ms V.C. Mhaispurkar, AGP for respondent Nos.1,3 and 4; Shri Utangale i/b M/s. Utangale & Co. for respondent No.2; Shri G.S. Godbole with V.V. Warerkar i/b M/s. Warerkar & Warerkar for respondent Nos.5 and 6.
Madhukar Shankar Parsekar
The State of Maharashtra, Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Additional District Collector (ENC) & C.A., Deputy Collector (ENC), Global Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Shri Tirupati Balaji SRA C.H.S. Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of eviction passed by the Administrator & Divisional Commissioner in a slum rehabilitation matter.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 24th May 2006 directing him to vacate his premises and hand over possession to respondent No.5.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was aggrieved by the order of eviction and alleged denial of opportunity of hearing, lack of authority of the officer who issued the original order, and inadequacy of alternative accommodation.
Previous Decisions
The impugned order was passed by the Administrator & Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai on 24th May 2006, which was challenged in the writ petition.
Issues
Whether the lower appellate authority denied sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by rejecting his request for adjournment?
Whether the original order was issued by an officer not authorised under law?
Whether the alternative accommodation offered (225 sq.ft.) was inadequate compared to the petitioner's structure (1460 sq.ft.)?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that his request for adjournment was rejected without giving him a chance to be heard, violating natural justice.
Petitioner contended that the officer who issued the original order lacked authority under law.
Petitioner submitted that his structure occupied 1460 sq.ft. but he was offered only 225 sq.ft. as alternative accommodation.
Respondents argued that the petitioner did not produce medical certificate to support his illness, and the authority was justified in rejecting adjournment.
Respondents submitted that no material was placed to show lack of authority of the officer.
Respondents contended that the issue of area of alternative accommodation was pending before the lower appellate authority.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the lower appellate authority did not violate principles of natural justice as the petitioner failed to produce medical certificate to support his request for adjournment. The challenge to the authority of the officer was not supported by any material. The issue of adequacy of alternative accommodation was pending before the lower appellate authority and could be agitated there.
Judgment Excerpts
Heard. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.
The petitioner challenges the order dated 24th May, 2006 passed by the Administrator & Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai, whereby the petitioner is directed to vacate the premises and to hand over the possession of the land occupied by his structure as well as to shift to the alternative accommodation provided by the respondent No.5 herein.
The challenge to the impugned order is three-fold.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court challenging an order dated 24th May 2006 passed by the Administrator & Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai. The court heard the matter and dismissed the petition on 5th October 2006.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
