Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 – Chapter V-A – Constitution of India – Article 226, 227 – Proceedings pertaining to eviction of unauthorised occupants of public premises – Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in framing points for determination by the Inquiry Officer directing that the proceedings be conducted in consonance with the principles of natural justice:
Held: Yes – High Court exceeded the ambit of its writ and supervisory jurisdiction in framing points for determination in a summary proceeding, more so when the proceedings were at the embryonic stage of notice having been issued to the respondents – Having directed that the proceedings be conducted in consonance with the principles of natural justice, the High Court overstepped its limits and took unto itself a duty which the Act entrusts the statutory authority to exercise – High Court at best, could have moulded relief as deemed fit and proper, but in framing issues for the Inquiry Officer to determine, it went far beyond its domain by substituting its own wisdom for that of the civil court – Furthermore, the proceedings for eviction can be continued by the Inquiry Officer by adhering to principles of natural justice, even in the absence of regulations being framed u/s.105H – s.105H does not place an embargo on the Inquiry Officer to proceed until regulations were framed – Much of the utility in ensuring that public premises are made free of unauthorised occupants would be lost on such technical pleas based raised and examined on a provision of law which is not imperative in terms – Impugned order entertaining writ petitions filed by the respondents which were not maintainable, set aside. [Paras 20, 22, 34, 35]
Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 – s.105F – Constitution of India – Article 226, 227 – Proceedings pertaining to eviction of unauthorised occupants of public premises – Appeals filed by respondents under section 105F before the Principal Judge, City Civil Court against the order of the Inquiry Officer – Appeal held not maintainable – Writ petition filed by the respondents challenging the order of the Principal Judge – Maintainability: Held: Not maintainable – Writ petition of the respondents seeking quashing of the decision of a civil court by issuing a writ of certiorari was not maintainable and ought to have been dismissed at the threshold with respect to its primary relief – An order of the civil court could only be challenged under Article 227 and not Article 226 thereof – Appellate order under challenge before the High Court was rendered by a civil court, and it is trite that orders passed by a civil court cannot be challenged in a writ petition under Article
226 – Furthermore, the petition of the respondents also failed to merit the exercise of the High Court’s supervisory powers under Article 227 and should have been rejected. [Paras 15, 14, 18] Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 – Proceedings pertaining to eviction of unauthorised occupants of public premises – Inquiry Officer was an officer of the first appellantCorporation – Eviction proceedings were challenged inter alia on the ground that institutional bias vitiated the proceedings – One of the points framed by the High Court for determination of the Inquiry Officer was as to whether the proceedings were vitiated by institutional bias as the same were being conducted by an officer of the first appellant:
Held: If the officers have no personal interest in the lis, bias cannot be imputed, especially since, the officer is acting not in his capacity as an executive official, but as a quasi-judicial authority – High Court in the impugned order already rendered a finding on the issue by holding that though the Inquiry Officer was an officer of the first appellant, in the inquiry proceedings, he is an independent quasi-judicial officer under the Act – It ought not to frame a point despite such determination. [Para 31]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.