Writ petitions challenging the eviction notices issued by the Nashik Municipal Corporation (NMC) under Section 81-B of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act. The petitioners, who are lessees of properties owned by NMC, argue that the eviction is unjustified as the public interest grounds cited by the Corporation were not proven. The key issue is whether the Commissioner followed the appropriate legal procedure in issuing eviction notices and if the decision was supported by adequate evidence.

• Petitioners: The petitioners are lessees of municipal properties situated on Plot No. 282, Dwarka, Nashik. They have been conducting business on this land since 1973.
• Respondents: The Nashik Municipal Corporation (NMC) issued eviction notices to the petitioners, claiming the land is needed for road widening and decongestion.
• Eviction Notices: The NMC issued notices under Section 81-B of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, alleging unauthorized occupation and public interest for road widening.
• Show Cause Notices (2015): The NMC cited non-payment of rent and public interest in traffic decongestion as the grounds for eviction.
• District Court's Judgment: In 2019, the District Court held the eviction notices were illegal due to lack of evidence and remanded the matter for fresh hearing.
• Corporation's Order (2020): Following remand, the NMC reiterated its decision to evict, but the petitioners contended that no material evidence was provided to substantiate the public interest.
• Appeal (2023): The petitioners challenged the subsequent eviction orders before the High Court, claiming that the NMC failed to provide valid reasons and documentary evidence for the eviction.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, particularly:
  • Section 81-B: Deals with the powers of the Commissioner to evict unauthorized occupants and those whose premises are required in the public interest.
  • Section 81-F: Pertains to appeals against eviction orders.
  • Section 81-I: Addresses the inquiry and powers of the Commissioner during the eviction process.

Ratio Decidendi:

The High Court held that the eviction orders lacked substantive reasoning and evidence to support the public interest claim. The mere assertion of public interest for road widening, without supporting documentation or a proper inquiry, is insufficient to justify eviction. Furthermore, the petitioners were denied a reasonable opportunity to contest the claims, which violated procedural fairness.

Subject: Writ Petition, Eviction, Public Interest, Municipal Corporation

#PublicInterest #RoadWidening #Section81B #MaharashtraMunicipalCorporationAct #DueProcess