Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: Sheetal Jadhav Vs. Admiral Superintendent
Received on : 08.03.2019
Registered on : 14.03.2019
Decided on : 21.01.2021
Duration : Y M D
01 10 13
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.102 of 2019
(CNR No. MHCC01-002708-2019)
Sheetal Jadhav
Age: 29 years
Occ: Service
Residing at Qtr. No. 45/08
NCH Colony, (Powai)
Mumbai – 400 076 ..Appellant
Versus
Admiral Superintendent
Estate Manager/Estate Officer
Naval Dockyard,
Mumbai 400 023 ..Respondent
Coram : H.H.THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE
S.B.AGRAWAL (C.R.No.19)
Dated : 21st January, 2021
Appearance:
Adv. Mr.Kartikeya Bahadur i/b. Adv. Sangram Chinnappa
for appellant.
Adv. Mr.Shreeram Redij
for respondent.
1 of 5
21st January, 2021
-- 1 of 5 --
Sheetal Jadhav Vs. Admiral Superintendent
O R A L J U D G M E N T
Order passed by the Estate Officer on 28.2.2019 directing eviction
of the appellant u/s. 5(1) of The Public Premises Act (Eviction of
Unauthorized Occupants) Act,1971 from the subject premises namely
Quarter No. 45/08 at NCHC(P) which is located at Powai within a
period of 15 days is assailed in the present appeal principally on the
ground that hearings of the proceedings were concluded before one
Estate Officer who was thereafter transferred and without giving further
opportunity of hearing to the appellant, the order impugned was passed
by another Estate Officer and this amounts to gross violation of
principles of natural justice and thus, vitiates the order.
2. Admittedly, the appellant is in employment of Indian Navy and it
is the case of respondent that father of the appellant was also working
in Naval Dockyard and was granted accommodation in the vicinity of
the subject premises and while the appellant was recruited in Naval
Armament Depot which had a separate pool of accommodation, was
allotted the subject premises on temporary basis since it was in the
vicinity of the accommodation allotted to the father. However, the
appellant was not entitled to retain the subject premises. Be that as it
may, this aspect is required to be taken into consideration by giving
proper opportunity of hearing by the Estate Officer who has passed the
order in the matter.
3. In this narrow compass, following points arise for my
consideration and my findings thereon for the reasons therefor are as
2 of 5
21st January, 2021
-- 2 of 5 --
Sheetal Jadhav Vs. Admiral Superintendent
under:
POINTS FINDINGS
1. Whether the principles of natural justice were
adhered to while passing the impugned order?
..In the Negative
2. Whether the impugned order deserves to be
interfered with?
..In the affirmative
3. Whether the matter deserves to be remanded
back?
..In the affirmative
4. What Order? ..As per final order
R E A S O N S
Point Nos.1 to 3:
4. Perusal of record and proceedings in the matter clearly shows that
oral arguments in the matter were heard on 20.10.2018 in the office of
the Estate Officer Rear Admiral Sandeep Naithani whereas the
impugned order as aforesaid was passed by Rear Admiral G.Srinivasan.
There is no material to show that Rear Admiral G.Srinivasan had given
opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
5. It is fundamental principle of natural justice that the authority
who has heard the matter, is required to pass an order, otherwise the
very purpose of hearing is rendered otiose and in such circumstances,
the impugned order can be said to have been passed without giving
opportunity of hearing. In this view of the matter, order deserves to be
set aside solely on this ground and the matter is required to be
remanded back to the Estate Officer for giving opportunity of hearing to
the appellant and passing an order thereafter.
3 of 5
21st January, 2021
-- 3 of 5 --
Sheetal Jadhav Vs. Admiral Superintendent
6. Both the sides submit before me that no further evidence would
be led before the Estate Officer and upon giving oral hearing to both the
sides and after perusing the material which has been filed on record,
Estate Officer shall pass an appropriate order. Hence, in such
circumstances, I answer the points accordingly and pass the following
order:
O R D E R
1. Misc. Appeal No. 102 of 2019 is partly allowed.
2. Order passed by the Estate Officer on 28th February, 2019 is
hereby set aside.
3. Matter is remanded back to the Estate Officer for giving
opportunity of hearing to both the sides and for passing order in
accordance with law and in the light of observations made
hereinabove.
4. Record and Proceedings be returned to the respondent forthwith.
21.1.2021 (S.B.AGRAWAL)
Principal Judge,
Gr.Bombay.
Dictated on : 21.1.2021
Transcribed on : 21.1.2021
Signed by HHJ on :21.1.2021
4 of 5
21st January, 2021
-- 4 of 5 --
Sheetal Jadhav Vs. Admiral Superintendent
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER
Name of Stenographers: Mrs. Bharti S. Parab
Upload date and time: 22.1.2021 (at 1.10 pm)
Name of the Judge H.H.THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE
Shri S.B.AGRAWAL(C.R.No.19)
Date of Pronouncement of Order 22.1.2021
Order signed by P.O. on 22.1.2021
Order uploaded on 22.1.2021
5 of 5
21st January, 2021
-- 5 of 5 --