2001 (12) TMI 882 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Scope and ambit of Section 7 of the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955.
2. Applicability of an order of 'dropping of proceedings' under Section 4 of the Act.
3. Right of the State Government to prefer an appeal against decisions of the Competent Authority.

Summary:

Scope and Ambit of Section 7 of the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955:
The Supreme Court examined the scope of Section 7, which provides for appeals from every order of the Competent Authority made under Section 4 or Section 5. The Court emphasized that the term "every order" comprehensively covers all decisions, including the dropping of proceedings. The High Court's interpretation that the Competent Authority is merely an arm of the Government and thus the State cannot appeal against its own decision was deemed erroneous. The Supreme Court clarified that the Competent Authority operates as a quasi-judicial entity, and its decisions are subject to appeal under Section 7.

Applicability of an Order of 'Dropping of Proceedings' under Section 4:
The Court addressed whether the dropping of proceedings constitutes an order under Section 4. It was argued that since the Competent Authority did not find the conditions for eviction satisfied, the dropping of proceedings should not be considered an appealable order. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the termination of proceedings by recording "proceedings dropped" is indeed an order. The Court noted that the Competent Authority's decision to drop proceedings after issuing notices and hearing parties is a determination that falls within the ambit of Section 4.

Right of the State Government to Prefer an Appeal:
The Supreme Court rejected the High Court's view that the State Government has no right to appeal against the Competent Authority's decisions. The Court highlighted that the statutory language of Section 7 explicitly allows for appeals from "every order" of the Competent Authority. The interpretation that the State cannot appeal against its own decision was found to be a misreading of the statute. The Court emphasized that the Competent Authority's decisions are independent and subject to judicial review, and the State's right to appeal is integral to the statutory framework.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, allowing the appeals and directing the concerned District Judge to hear the appeals with utmost expedition within four months. The Court underscored the importance of interpreting statutory provisions in their entirety and giving effect to every word used by the Legislature. The High Court's restrictive interpretation was found to be contrary to the norms of statutory construction.