1988 (10) TMI 275 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legislative competence of Parliament to enact the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.
2. Constitutional validity of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.
3. Definition and scope of "public premises" under the Act.
4. Application of the Act to properties of Government companies.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legislative Competence of Parliament to Enact the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971:
The petitioner challenged the legislative competence of Parliament to enact the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, arguing that the subject matter falls under the State List (List II) and not under the Union List (List I) or Concurrent List (List III). The Court referred to the Constitution Bench decision in Hari Singh's case, which had stated that Parliament has legislative competence to enact the Act for providing a speedy procedure for eviction of unauthorized occupants of public premises. The Court emphasized that the subject matter of the legislation is "providing a speedy procedure for eviction of persons in unauthorized occupation of public premises" and falls under Entry 32 of List I, which pertains to "Property of the Union and the revenue therefrom." The Court concluded that Parliament has the competence to legislate on this subject.

2. Constitutional Validity of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971:
The petitioner argued that the Act is unconstitutional. The Court reiterated the scheme of the Act, which confers power on Estate Officers to issue notices to unauthorized occupants of public premises and to evict them after following due procedure. The Court highlighted that the Act's primary objective is to provide a speedy procedure for eviction of unauthorized occupants from public premises and incidental matters. The Court found that the Act is constitutionally valid and does not violate any provisions of the Constitution.

3. Definition and Scope of "Public Premises" under the Act:
The petitioner contended that the definition of "public premises" under Section 2(e)(1)(i) of the Act, which includes premises belonging to or taken on lease by any company in which not less than 51% of the paid-up capital is held by the Central Government, is beyond the legislative competence of Parliament. The Court referred to the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision in L. S. Nair's case, which had rejected this contention. The Court agreed with the reasoning that Parliament has the competence to legislate on this matter under Entries 6, 7, and 46 of List III, which deal with transfer of property, contracts, and jurisdiction and powers of courts, respectively.

4. Application of the Act to Properties of Government Companies:
The petitioner argued that the Act should not apply to properties of Government companies. The Court held that Government companies are governed by the Indian Companies Act, which is enacted under Entry 43 of List I. The Court stated that it is essential for Parliament to have the authority to legislate for the eviction of unauthorized occupants from properties of Government companies, especially when such companies have properties in multiple states or Union Territories. The Court found that the need for a speedy eviction process for such properties is self-evident and that Parliament has the legislative competence under Entry 97 of List I, which covers any matter not enumerated in List II or List III.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the petition, upholding the legislative competence of Parliament to enact the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, and affirming the constitutional validity of the Act. The Court also confirmed that the Act validly applies to properties of Government companies. The interim order was vacated, and no costs were awarded.