OLGA TELLIS & ORS. versus BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 51 · Decided: 10-07-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

51 
OLGA TELLIS & ORS. 
A 
v. 
BOMBAY MUNiCIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. ETC. 
JULY, 10, 1985 
[Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, c.J.' s. MURTAlA FAZAL ALI, v.D. TULZAPURKAR, 
B 
O. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ. j 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
Article · 32 -
Fundamental Rights -
Estoppel -
Pdnciple 
behind - No estoppel can be claimed against enforcement of Funda-
C 
mental Rights. 
Article 21, 19(1) (e) & (g) - Pavement and slum dwellers -
Forcible eviction and removal of their hutments under Bombay 
Municipal Corporation Act -
Whether deprives them of their means 
of livelihood and consequently right to life - Right to life -
Meaning of - Whether includes right to livelihood· 
Article 32 & 21 - Writ Petition against procedurally ultra 
vires Government action - Whether manintainable. 
Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, s.314 - Power to 
D 
remove encroachments "without notice", when permissible - Section 
E 
- Whether ultra vires the Constitution. 
Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Audi alteram partem 
- Notice - Discretion to act with or without notice must be exer-
cised reasonably, fairly and justly - Natural justice - Exclusion 
- How far permissible. 
F 
The petit:f,oners in writ petitions Nos. 4610-12/8.1 live on 
pavements and in slums in the cii:y of Bombay. 
Some of the peti-
tioners in the second batch of writ petitions Nos.5068-79 of 
1981, are residents of Kamraj Nagar, a basti or habitation which 
is alleged to have come into existence in about 1960-61, near 
G 
the Western Express Highway, Bombay, while others are residing in 
structures ·constructed off the Tulsi Pipe Road, 
Mahim, 
Bombay. 
The Peoples Union for Civil Liberties, Committee for th~ Protec-
tion of Democratic Rights and two journalists have also joined in 
the writ petitions. 
.. 
H 
52 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R. 
A 
Some time in 1981, the respondents - State of Maharashtra 
and Bombay Municipal Corporation took a decision that all pave-
ment dwellers and the slum or busti dwellers 
in the city of 
Bombay will be evicted forcibly and deported to their respective, 
places of origin or removed to places outside the city of Bombay. 
Pursuant to that decision, the pavement dwellings of some of the 
B 
petitioners were in fact demolished by the Bombay Municipal Cor-
poration. 
Some of the petitioners challenged the aforesaid deci-
sion of the respondents in the High Court. The petitioners conce-
ded before the High Court that they could not claim any funda-
mental right to put up huts on pavements or public roads, and 
also gave an undertaking to vacate the huts on or before October, 
15, 198i. 
On such undertaking being given, the respondents 
c 
agreed that the huts will not be demolished until October 15, 
1981 and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
fl 
In writ petitions filed under Article 32, the petitioners 
>--
challenged the decision of the respondents to demolish the pave-
ment dwellings and the slum hutments on the grounds (i) that 
evicting a pavement dweller from his habitat amounts to depriving 
him of his right to livelihood, which is comprehended in the 
right guaranteed by 
Article 
21 
of the Constitution that no 
person shall be deprived of his life except according to proce-
dure established by law, (ii) that the impugned action of the 
State Government and the Bombay Municipal Corpoation is violative 
of the provisions contained in Article 19(1)(3), 19(l)(g) and 21 
of the Constitution, (iii) that the procedure prescribed by 
Section 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 for the 
removal of encroachments from pavements is arbitrary and unrea-
sonable since, not only does it not provide for the giving of a 
notice before the 
removal of an encorachment but, expressly 
enables that the Municipal Collllllissioner may cause the encroach-
ments to be removed "without notice", (iv) that it is constitu-
tionally impermissible to characterise the· pavement dwellers as 
'tresspassers', because their occupation of pavements arises Crom 
economic compulsions; and (v) that the Court must determine the 
content of the 'right to life', the function of property in a 
welfare state, the dimension and true meaning of the constitu-
tional mandate that property must subserve common good, the sweep 
of the right to reside and settle in any part of the territory of 
India which is guaranteed by Article 19(1) (a) and the right to · 
carry on any occupation, trade or business which is gua
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.