STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus MARWANJEE F. DESAI AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 647 · Decided: 14-12-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
A 
v. 
MARW ANJEE F. DESAI AND ORS. 
Df!,~BER 14, 2001 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND UMESH C. BANERJEE, JJ.] 
B 
Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955-Sections 4, 5, 6 
and 7-Public Premises-Leased out to private occupants-Competent au-
thority issuing eviction notices to the occupants-Subsequently, competent 
authority "dropping the proceedings"-Appeal by State Government under 
C 
Section 7 of the Act-Preliminary objection by occupants as to the 
maintainability of the appeal-Overruled by trial court-On appeal, High 
Court held that State Government had no right of appeal against the decision 
of competent authority which is an extended arm or department of the 
Government-Validity of-Held, Section 7 of the Act clearly provides for an 
appeal against "every order" passed by competent authority-Proceedings 
initiated by competent authority are quasi judicial in nature-"Proceedings 
dropped''. cannot be equated with an order qf dismissal of proceedings-Order 
of High Court set aside. 
Interpretation qf Statutes : 
Expression "every order"-Interpretation o.f-Held, if restrictive mean-
ing is attributed to the word "every" there would be total redundancy which the 
legislature avoids-Statement qf objects and reasons is undoubtedly a us~ful 
guide and aid to construction but the legislative intenl has to be gathered by 
reading the entire statute-Where the language of Statute is clear and categori-
cal, no external aid is permissible for interpretation. 
Words and Phrases : 
Expression "every order" -Meaning of in the contexr of Secrion 7 of the 
D 
E 
F 
Bombay Government Premfa·es (Eviction) Act, 1955. 
G 
Certain plots of land belonging to the state Government were leased 
out to respondent-occupants. Since the Government wanted the said plots 
of land for a public purpose, the competent authority issued show cause 
notices to the respondent-occupants under Section 4(2) of the Bombay 
Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955. However, subsequently after 
H 
647 
648 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
affording opportunity of hearing to the parties the competent authority 
passed an order dropping the eviction proceedings. Aggrieved, State Gov· 
ernment preferred an appeal under Section 7 of the Act before the City 
Civil Conrt. The respondents raised a preliminary objection as to the 
maintainability of the appeal. The objection was rejected. Thereafter, 
B 
respondents filed a writ petition before the High Court which was allowed 
holding that the State Government had no right under Section 7 of the Act 
to prefer an appeal against the order of competent authority which was an 
extended arm or a department of the Government. Hence the present 
appeals by the State Government. 
C 
On behalf of the appellant-State it was contended that on a true 
D 
E 
F 
G 
reading of Section 7 of the Act it could not be held that the competent 
authority was an extended arm or a department of the Government and 
for all practical purposes to be termed as the Government and thus, the 
High Court erred in its finding that the State Government had no right of 
appeal against the decision of the competent authority; that the use of the 
word "every order" in Section 7 of the Act indicates that it comprehen· 
sively covers all decisions reached by the competent authority under Sec-
tions 4 or 5; that the attempt to distinguish between the order and drop-
ping of proceeding was wholly artificial and illogical. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1. The order of High Court holding that the State Govern-
ment has no power to prefer au appeal under Section 7 of the Bombay 
Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955 against the order of competent 
authority cannot be sustained. (661-C] 
2.1. The word "every", appearing in Section 7 of the Act immedi· 
ately before the word "order", stands out to be extremely significant so as 
to offer an opportunity of appeal in the event of there being an order 
against the Government. The legislature has deliberately used "every or· 
der" and if the restrictive meaning is attributed, as has been done by the 
High Court, then the word "every in any event becomes totally redundant 
bnt since the legislature avoids redundancy and every word used in the 
particular provision shall have to be attributed a meaning and attribution 
of any meaning to the words 'every' by itself would negate the interpreta-
tion as found favour with the High Court. Use of the words "every or

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.