Bombay High Court Adjudicates Petitions Challenging Mumbai Port Trust's Summary Eviction Notices Under Bye-law No.9. Petitioners Sought Declaration That Bye-law No.9 Ultra Vires Public Premises Act and Violated Natural Justice.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

In a batch of writ petitions, occupants of structures at Reay Road, Mazgaon, Mumbai, challenged eviction notices issued by the Mumbai Port Trust on 06.11.2017 directing them to vacate within twelve hours. Petitioners claimed long-standing possession since before 1 April 1962, payment of property taxes to the Municipal Corporation, and holding of licenses under the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments Act. They contended that Bye-law No.9 of the Bombay Port Trust, which authorized summary eviction of unauthorized occupants from roads, buildings, and vacant plots in the Port Trust Estate, was ultra vires the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. They also argued that the bye-law did not contemplate any prior hearing and thus violated the principles of natural justice, and that the eviction notices were contrary to the detailed procedure mandated by the Public Premises Act. The Port Trust defended the validity of its bye-law and the necessity of such summary powers. The High Court heard the parties and reserved judgment. (The extracted text does not contain the final decision or reasoning.)

Issue of Consideration

Whether Bye-law No.9 of the Bombay Port Trust is ultra vires the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and/or the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963; whether the impugned eviction notices requiring vacation within twelve hours violate the principles of natural justice; whether the proposed action of summary eviction without following the procedure under the Public Premises Act is lawful.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Case Details

2018 LawText (BOM) (03) 69

Writ Petition (L) No.3058 of 2017 and connected petitions

2018-03-27

R.M.Borde, R.G.Ketkar

Dr.Abhinav Chandrachud, Mr.Ajay Panicker, Ms.Hemali Kurne for petitioner; Mr.Shrihari Aney, Senior Counsel with Mr.Ajay Khaire, Mr.Mandar Bangale for Respondent No.1; Ms.Trupti Puranik, Ms.Pooja Yadav, Mr.Sagar Patil for Respondent No.2; Mr.D.N.Mishra, Mr.P.S.Gujar, Ms.Richa Mishra, Ms.Gul Asnani for Respondent No.3

Shri S.K.Parmanandan & Ors.

Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging eviction notices and validity of Bye-law No.9 of the Bombay Port Trust

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought quashing of eviction notices dated 06.11.2017 and a declaration that Bye-law No.9 is ultra vires the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and/or the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963

Filing Reason

Respondent No.1 issued notices on 06.11.2017 calling upon petitioners to vacate the premises within twelve hours, failing which they were threatened with demolition of structures

Issues

Whether Bye-law No.9 of the Bombay Port Trust is ultra vires the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and/or the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 Whether the impugned eviction notices requiring vacation within twelve hours violate the principles of natural justice Whether the proposed action of summary eviction without following the procedure under the Public Premises Act is lawful

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners claimed long-standing occupation since before 1962, payment of property taxes, and holding of municipal licenses Petitioners argued that Bye-law No.9 is ultra vires the Public Premises Act and Major Port Trusts Act as it allows eviction without following the statutory procedure Petitioners contended that the bye-law does not provide for any prior hearing and thus violates natural justice Petitioners submitted that the short twelve-hour notice is unreasonable and against the principles of settled possession

Judgment Excerpts

No person shall without permission in writing of the Docks Manager... construct or permit to be constructed any road... or by causing or permitting the same to be obstructed... Any goods, articles or other hindrances... shall be liable to be removed... after 12 hours' notice... Petitioners claim to be in occupation... since many years anterior to 1st April, 1962... Petitioners... have been issued a license under the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments Act... Most of them are also regularly paying professional tax. Bye law No.9, which authorises the Port Trust authorities to evict a person from premises with a prior notice of twelve hours is ultra vires the provisions of Public Premises Act

Procedural History

Petitioners filed writ petitions challenging eviction notices dated 06.11.2017. Rule was issued and with consent of parties, petitions were heard finally at the stage of admission. The court reserved judgment on 09.02.2018 and pronounced it on 27.03.2018.

Acts & Sections

  • Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971:
  • Major Port Trusts Act, 1963:
  • Bombay Port Trusts Act, 1879:
  • Maharashtra Shops and Establishments Act:
  • Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888:
  • Bombay Port Trust Bye-laws: Bye-law No.9
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Quashes Transfer Order of Education Department Superintendent as Malafide and Unreasonable. Transfer Based on Unverified Complaints Without Enquiry Violates Principles of Natural Justice and Service Law Norms.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Disposes of Writ Petitions Challenging Section 140(3)(iv) of CGST Act on Transitional Credit for Pre-GST Stock. Petitioners Argue Arbitrary Cut-Off Date Leads to Double Taxation and Discrimination.