9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the constitutional validity of section 54 of the Bombay Town Planning Act 1954 and Rule 27 of the Bombay Town Planning Rules 1955, specifically in relation to the summary eviction of occupants by the Municipal Corporation. Summary: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of section 54 of the Act and Rule 27 of the Rules, which allowed for the summary eviction of occupants by the Municipal Corporation. The appellants had challenged the validity of the eviction notices on the grounds that section 54 conferred absolute discretion on the local authority and was violative of Article 14, and that the procedure was opposed to principles of natural justice. The High Court rejected both grounds of challenge, holding that the Act created new rights and liabilities enforceable through summary eviction, and that section 54 conferred quasi-judicial power requiring adherence to principles of natural justice. Regarding the absence of a corrective machinery for appeal or revision against adverse orders, the Court emphasized that the provision must be considered in conjunction with various factors to determine its reasonableness and validity. The Court cited previous cases where the absence of corrective machinery did not render a provision invalid if other safeguards were in place, such as the requirement for a quasi-judicial authority to provide reasons for its decisions and the availability of judicial review. In analyzing the scheme of the Act and the purpose of section 54, the Court found that the power of summary eviction was conferred on a responsible body to be exercised objectively and in compliance with principles of natural justice. The Court agreed with the High Court's view that the absence of a specific appellate mechanism did not invalidate the provision, considering the safeguards in place to ensure fair and reasoned decision-making. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the constitutional validity of section 54 and Rule 27 without awarding costs to either party.
|
