Bombay High Court
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (Formerly ... vs The Board Of Trustees Of The Port Of ... on 25 January, 2019
Author: R. G. Ketkar
Bench: R. G. Ketkar
WP834_19.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.834 OF 2019
Hindustan Unilever Limited ... Petitioners
Vs.
The Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai
and another ... Respondents
Mr. P. K. Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Viren Asar, Ms
Shraddha Achliya and Ms Sanaya Kapadia i/b. Parinam Law Associates
for Petitioners.
Mr. N. V. Walawalkar, Senior Advocate a/w. Roop B. and Nehal Mahul
i/b. The Law Point for Respondent No.1.
CORAM : R. G. KETKAR, J.
DATE : JANUARY 25, 2019 P.C. :
Heard Mr. Dhakephalkar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Walawalkar, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.1 at length.
2. This Petition takes exception to the order dated 17.12.2018 passed by the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court at Bombay, Greater Bombay below exhibit-4 in Miscellaneous Appeal No.99 of 2017. By that order, the learned Judge has rejected the application filed by the petitioner at exhibit-4 inter alia praying for the following reliefs:
"(a) that the further hearing on the merits of the present Appeal be deferred pending the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court on the issue of jurisdiction of the Estate Officers;
(b) that this court may decide the point of jurisdiction of the Estate Officers before proceeding with the hearing of the present Appeal on merits;
(c) that pending the hearing and final disposal of this application, further hearing of the present Appeal on merits be stayed."
3. While rejecting the application, the learned Judge noted in 1/3 ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2019 04:18:01 ::: WP834_19.doc paragraph 9 that the Appellate Court has to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible and every endeavour has to be made to dispose of the appeal finally within one month from the date of filing of the appeal, after providing the parties an opportunity of being heard, in terms of Section 9(4) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short 'Act'). The hearing of the appeal commenced on 03.07.2018. The learned Judge heard the appellants (petitioners) on 26.07.2018, 09.08.2018, 10.09.2018 and 16.10.2018. In the midst of the hearing, application exhibit-4 was filed. The learned Judge, therefore, rejected the application.
4. Mr. Dhakephalkar submitted that the issue raised in the application goes to the root of the matter. He submitted that as many as 11 Writ Petitions have been filed in this Court raising the issue of jurisdiction of the Estate Officers to conduct the proceedings under the Act. The learned Judge, therefore, should waited for the decision of this Court in the pending Writ Petitions. In any case, the issue of jurisdiction is a pure question of law and the petitioners do not intend to adduce any evidence. The learned Judge, therefore, should have framed the preliminary issue and permitted the parties to advance the arguments and decide the said issue first before entering into merits of the appeal. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order may be set aside thereby directing the learned Judge to decide the preliminary issue first.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Walawalkar submitted that the contention that Estate Officers have no jurisdiction to conduct the proceedings under the Act was not raised before the Estate Officer. He submitted that the appeal is required to be heard expeditiously in terms of Section 9(4) of the Act. The learned Judge had heard the petitioners on different dates, and therefore, no case is made out for entertaining the Petition.
2/3 ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2019 04:18:01 :::WP834_19.doc
6. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties. I have also perused the material on record. It appears that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Estate Officer, petitioners did not raise objection to the competence of the Estate Officer to conduct the proceedings. A perusal of the impugned order shows that in the midst of the hearing, application exhibit-4 was filed for the reliefs, quoted hereinabove. After noting in paragraph 9 about the hearing of the appeal from time to time, the learned Judge rejected the application. Merely because Petitions are pending in this Court, that will not be a sufficient ground for staying the proceedings before the Appellate Authority. The learned Judge will decide the issue of jurisdiction along with other issues while deciding the appeal. In particular, the learned Judge will decide the issues raised in the Miscellaneous application dated 26.10.2018 (Exhibit-L, pages 467 to 470 of this Petition) as also note on the point of jurisdiction (Exhibit- I, pages 323 to 329 of this Petition), which was filed by the petitioners on 09.08.2018. In addition to this, all contentions of the parties on merits are expressly kept open. Subject to this, Petition fails and the same is dismissed.
(R. G. KETKAR, J.) Minal Parab 3/3 ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2019 04:18:01 :::