LexM/S. CRAWFORD BAYLEY AND CO. AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B JWS. CRAWFORD BAYLEY AND CO. AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. JULY 5, 2006 [H.K. SEMA AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.] Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971- Section 3(n) Second proviso-Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999-Tenancy C of public premises-Notice for termination of tenancy-By Estate Officer under 1971 Act-Notice challenged questioning Constitutional validity of Section 3 and its proviso of 1971 Act and on the ground of appointment of Estate Officer being contrary to Allocation of Business Rules-Dismissal of Writ. Petition by High Court-On appeal, held: Constitutional validity of Section 3 has already been upheld by Supreme Court-Proviso to Section 3 is also not D unconstitutional as the Estate Officer appointed by the concerned administrative Department cannot be said to be judge in his own cause-Appointment of Estate Officer was not contrary to Rules in view of decentralization of power of its appointment-Direction to Estate Officer to dispose of the matter- Constitution of India, 1950-Article 254(2)-Government of India Allocation E of Business Rules, 1966. The predecessor of respondent-Bank had leased out the premises to the appellant-firm. By notice Bank terminated the tenancy of the firm. Thereafter respondent-Estate Officer issued a show cause notice under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 for F passing eviction order. The same was~challenged by filing Writ Petition in High Court on the grounds inter alia that in view of Article 254(2) of the Constitution, Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 shall prevail over the provisions of 1971 Act; that provisions of Section 3 of the 1971 Act were violative of Article 14 of the Constitti~ion as it makes the Estate Officer of the Statutory authority as a judge in his own cause; that G appointment of the Estate Officer by Ministry of Finance was contrary to Government oflndia Allocation of Business Rules, 1961 which provides appointment of the Estate Officer by Ministry of Urban Development. High Court rejected all the grounds and dismissed the petitions. Hence the present appeals and Writ Petitions. H 240 CRAWFORD BAYLEY AND CO. v. U.0.1. 241 An affidavit had been filed clarifying that authority to appoint Estate A Officer by the Central Government was decentralized by a Notification and all the Ministries/Departments have been authorized to appoint Estate Officer under their respective administrative control. Appellants contended that the second proviso to Section 3(a) of 1971 Act providing that an officer of a Statutory Authority shall only be B appointed as an Estate Officer, would amount to a judge in his own cause. It was submitted by Respondent-Central Government that the officer who had been appointed as an Estate Officer would not be presiding over as Estate Officer. Dismissing the appeals and Writ petitions, the Court HELD: 1. The validity of Section 3 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 is no more res-integra and the same c has already been upheld. So far as second proviso to Section 3(a) is concerned, it is not ultra vires of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. It D cannot be said that second proviso to Section 3(a) providing that an officer of a Statutory Authority shall only be appointed as an Estate Officer in respect of the public premises controlled by that authority, will amount to a Judge in his own cause. (249-C-E) Magan/a/ Chhaganlal (P) Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors., (1974) 2 SCC 402 and Jn Re The Special Courts Bill, (1978] 1979 1 SCC 380, followed. Accountant and Secretarial Services Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., (1988) 4SCC 324, relied on. Northern India Caterers Private Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr. (1967) 3 SCR 399, referred to. E F 2.1. The Estate Officer appointed by the concerned administrative department cannot be said to be a judge in his own cause. There is no G personal bias of Estate Officer in these proceedings because he has no personal interest. However, this will further depend upon facts of each case and no generalization can be made. However, iri the present case, there is n·o such bias and even there is remote chance after the statement that the person appointed as Estate Officer would not be presiding over H 242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A as Estate Officer. 1253-C-D] 2.2. f'or bringing into ope
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.