LexAHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. versus RAMANLAL GOVINDRAM & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F H AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. )I, RAMANLAL GOVINDRAM & ORS. March 14, 1975 (A. N. R,AY, C.J., AND V. R. KRISHNA IYER, J.] Constitution articles 14 and 19-Act empowering the Municipal Commissioner to determine whether a person is in unauthorised occupation of Municipal pre- mises-Whether unreaso1111ble or contrary to prindples of natural justice- Choice to adoPt remedies one of which is more drastic whether violates Article 14-Provision providing appeal to State Govt. and not to ordinary courts whe- ther unreasonable. Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation (Gujarat Amend- melll) Act 1963-Validity of- The respondent~ filed Writ Petitions in the High Court of Gujarat challeng- ing the validity of section 437A of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation • (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1963. Section 437A(l) of the Act speaks of the order of eviction. In short, it states that if the Commissioner is satisfied that the person authorised to occupy any premises belonging to the Corporation as a tenant or otherwise has not paid any rent lawfully due from him in respect of such premises for a period of more than 2 months or has sublet without the per- mission of the Corporation the whole or any part of the premises or has other- wise acted in contravention of any of the terms express or implied unde~-which he is authorised to occupy such premises or that any person is .in unauthorised occupation or any municipal premises the Commissioner may notwithstanding anything contained in an.v law for the time being in force by notice order that such a person shall vacate them within one month of· the date of service of the notice. Section 43 7 A (2) speaks of the service of notice before the order is passed. Section 4370 speaks of appeals to the State Government. Section 437 of the Act states that the provisions contained in section 437 are in addi- tion to those contained in sections 60 and 438 of the Act. The Deputy Municipal Commissioner upon whom the Municipal Commissioner delegated powers under section 437 A served notices upon the respondents to show cause why they should not be evicted. The respondents appeared at the enquiry. - Thereafter an order was pa·ssed directing the respondents to vacate within one month of the date of the notice. The respondents challenged the. said notices in the High Court ·of Gujarat by tiling Petitions under Article 226 of Constiti1tion. The High Court held that there is a, valid basi& of differcntia between occupiers of municipal premises and those of other premises and that there is a rational nexus between the basis of the classification and the object of the legislation. 1he High Court held that sections 437A, 437B and 437F of the Act in so far. as they relate to an order made under section 437 A of the Act are' ultri;:, vires Article J9(1)(f) of the Constitution and section 437A(l) and (2) is ultra rires Article 14 of the Constitution. The High Court, however, held that section 437 A in so far as it empowers the Municipal Commissioner to make an order of e\'iction in cases of persons who are in unauthorised occupation of any municipal premises is violative of Article 14 on the ground that it is left to the arbitrary am'. unguided discretion of the Municipal Commissioner to adopt the drastic and sum------ ma~ry remedy provided under section 43 7 A ( 1) or to adopt the ordinary remedy of suit. The High Court upheld the contention of the respondents that the ma- chinery provided for evicti?n in section .437 A(!) is unreasonabl"'. on the grou!l<l that the Municipal Commissioner who 1s constttuted the anthonty to determme whether the condition of liability as set out in clauses (a) and (b) of section 437A(l) exists. is the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation which is the owner of the premises. The Municipal Commissioner will be both a party. and a Judge. The High Court further held that many questions of law would have to he decided and the Municipal Commissioner who is the Executive Officer would he hardly equipped to decide such questions of law. Allowing1 the appeal, 936 SUPREME COURT· REPORTS [19751 3 s.c.R. HELD : In view of the decision of this Court in Magan/al Chhagga11/al Pri- vate Limited" the judgment in Northern India Caterers case does not hold the field. On the ruling of this Court in Magan/al Chhagan/al case the conclusion of the High Court that section 437A offends Article 14 on the ground tha
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.