Bombay High Court
Able Disabled All People Together ... vs Union Of India And 3 Ors on 18 December, 2020
Bench: Nitin Jamdar, Milind Jadhav
rsk 1/3 21-WPL-8562-20.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
O.O.C.J.
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.8562 OF 2020
Able Disabled All People Together
(Adapt) & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. Sunip Sen i/b Shubro Dey for the Petitioners.
Mr. Advait Sethna a/w Mr. Ajinkya Jaibhave for Respondent Nos.1
and 2.
Mr. Mehul Shal a/w Mr. Daljeet Singh Bhatia for Respondent No.4.
CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR &
MILIND JADHAV, JJ.
DATE : 18 DECEMBER 2020. P.C.: . Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The Petitioners have challenged the notice dated 20 July 2020, and orders dated 17 November 2020 and 20 November 2020 under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 consequent to which the Petitioner has been directed to be evicted from the premises which are currently in its occupation.
rsk 2/3 21-WPL-8562-20.doc
3. A preliminary objection is raised on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the Petitioners have a remedy of an appeal under section 9 of the Act.
4. The learned counsel for the Petitioners contends that the primary contention of the Petitioners, which is also taken in reply to the show cause notice, is that the Authority has no jurisdiction to issue a notice under the said Act and the premises are not public premises. He submits that this issue has not been dealt with by the Authority and if the Act does not apply then there is no question of relegating the Petitioners to an alternate remedy as the initial order is without jurisdiction.
5. After we had put to the learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 that this stand was taken in the reply to the show cause notice and is not reflected and decided in the impugned order and whether the Authority will pass a fresh order, the learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2, upon taking instructions in the Court from the officer, submitted that a fresh order will be passed and the order dated 20 November 2020 can be considered as a prima facie opinion.
6. We also note that the Petitioners have not been able to effectively represent themselves due to Covid-19 pandemic. Considering this position and statement made by Respondent Nos.1 rsk 3/3 21-WPL-8562-20.doc and 2, we dispose of the petition as follows:
(a) The Petitioners will file their reply to the show cause notice already issued within a period of 2 weeks from today without prejudice to their rights and contentions regarding the issue of jurisdiction.
(b) The Respondent No.2 shall follow the procedure envisaged by Section 5 of the said Act and pass order giving reasons thereto.
(c) As regards the prayer of the Petitioner regarding the inspection of documents, the Petitioner will make representation, if not already made, to the Respondent/Authority which will deal with it as per the provisions of the Act and Rules thereunder.
(d) The earlier orders passed, which are impugned in this petition, shall be treated as a prima facie opinion.
7. The Writ Petition is disposed of in above terms.
8. It is made clear that we have not opined on the merits of the rival contentions of the parties and the order is passed in the above circumstances.
(MILIND JADHAV, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)
R.S. Digitally signed
by R.S. Karve
Date: 2020.12.22
Karve 14:27:18 +0530