JUDGMENT A.B. Chaudhari, J.
1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 25-11-2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 1795 of 2003, whereby he set aside the order passed by the respondent No. 2- Estate Officer and allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 herein; holding that respondent No. 2 - Estate Officer was obliged to hold hearings of the proceedings under Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, at the place where the public premises are located in the present case at Akola.
2. Factual matrix Factual matrix reveals that respondent No. 1 is occupant of the shop No. 254 as a licensee of appellant-Savatram Rampratap Mills, Akola, managed and controlled by National Textile Corporation Ltd. (N.T.C.). The respondent No. 2 is a Estate Officer appointed under Section 3 of the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971(for short the Act). The Estate Officer had issued notice to respondent No. 1 on 25-6-1993 and passed ex parte order dated 10-5-2000 directing eviction of the appellant from the public premises. On the same day the premises in question was put under lock and seal of the Estate Officer.
3. The respondent No. 1 preferred Misc. Civil Appeal No. 1/2001 and invoked appellate jurisdiction of the District Judge, Akola. Appeal came to be allotted to the 2nd Additional District Judge, Akola, who vide his order dated 6-3-2003 was pleased to set aside the order dated 10-5-2000 and directed de novo enquiry within a period of three months.
4. One of the contentions raised before the learned appellate Court was that the Estate Officer ought to have tried eviction proceedings within the territorial jurisdiction where the property is situate.
5. The Additional District Judge while deciding the appeal has observed that considering the general rule of law and the fact that the public premises are situated at Akola and the parties thereto being from Akola, it was expected as a rule of prudence to hold sitting at Akola.
6. The learned Additional District Judge also observed that if at all the point of jurisdiction is raised by the parties before the Estate Officer, he was given liberty to decide the issue as to which place would be a correct place to try, hear and decide the eviction proceedings initiated under the Act.
7. After remand, the Estate Officer issued fresh notices to the parties including respondent No. 1 herein informing that hearing of the case is fixed at Mumbai on 11-4-2003.
8. The respondent No. 1, after receipt of the aforesaid notice, filed writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, being W.P. No. 1795 of 2003, to challenge the aforesaid notice dated 4-4-2003 contending that the Estate Officer has no jurisdiction to hear and try eviction proceedings at Mumbai and appropriate writ of mandamus was sought against the Estate Officer directing him to try eviction proceedings at Akola only.
9. The learned Single Judge has upheld the contention of respondent No. 1. He ruled that, ordinarily judicial power or quasi-judicial powers such as those conferred on the Estate Officer must be exercised within the local limits of the jurisdiction where the premises are located. In this view of the matter, notice dated 4-4-2003 issued by the respondent No. 2, the Estate Officer, calling upon the petitioner to appear before him at Mumbai, came to be quashed and set aside by the impugned order dated 25-11-2003.
10. The aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge is a subject-matter of challenge in this L.P.A. filed at the instance of Savatram Mills, Akola.
11. Rival Submissions:
Shri M.G. Bhangde, learned senior advocate, assisted by Shri Panpalia Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that Central Government is empowered to appoint Estate Officer under Section 3 of the Act of 1971 for performing functions assigned to him under the Act. He submitted that Section 3(B) enables the Central Government to define the local limits within which or the categories of public premises in respect of which the Estate Officer shall exercise the powers conferred. He submitted that accordingly the notification dated 9-11-1998 has been issued and respondent No. 2 has been appointed as Estate Officer for Savatram Mills at Akola besides other mills in Vidarbha region. He then went on to submit that defining local limits of his jurisdiction can only mean the mills in respect of which he has to exercise jurisdiction and perform the functions under the Act. In other words, the Estate Officer is required to perform his functions in respect of the mills which are mentioned in the notification. Neither Section 3 nor the notification anywhere contemplates that the Estate Officer is required to hold the camp at the place where the mills or its properties are situate. According to him, such an interpretation is wholly misplaced and beyond the scope of Section 3 or the notification issued thereunder.
12. The learned Senior Advocate further urged that the provisions of the Act and Section 3 in particular do not anywhere, even remotely indicate, as to the place of holding the camp by the Estate Officer, so also the notification. He then submitted that the learned Single Judge committed an error in taking the help of Section 9 of the Act which provides for appeal against the order of the Estate Officer before the District Judge of the District in which the public premises are situated, to support his interpretation in the impugned judgment.
13. Submission of respondent No. 1:
Per contra, Mr. C.A. Joshi, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 argued that in the Misc. Civil Appeal that was filed before the District Judge, Akola, a specific observation was made by the 2nd Addl. District Judge in paragraph 12, which is as under:
However, considering the general rule of law and the fact that public premises are situated at Akola and parties thereto are also from Akola, it is expected as a rule of prudence to have sitting at Akola.
14. Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel, drew our attention to the averments in the writ petition which were not denied, namely; that the petitioner is a poor person, a small trader having one married daughter and the petitioner as well as his wife suffering from illness, it was impossible for him to remain present for hearing at Mumbai before the Estate Officer. The learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 then argued in support of the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge and stated that the reasons recorded by the learned Single Judge were correct and the appeal was liable to be dismissed.
15. Relevant statutory provisions:
Before considering the rival submissions, it is necessary to have a look at the relevant statutory provisions and the notification issued thereunder. Section 3 of the Act reads as under:
Appointment of Estate Officer : The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette:
(a) Appoint such person, being Gazetted Officers of Government (or of the Government of any Union Territory) or officers of equivalent rank of the (statutory authority), as it thinks fit, to be Estate Officers for the purposes of this Act (XXX).
[Provided that no officer of the Secretariat of the Rajya Sabha shall be so appointed except after consultation with the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha and no Officer of the Secretariat of the Lok Sabha shall be so appointed except after consultation with the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. Provided further that an officer of a statutory authority shall only be appointed as an estate officer in respect of the Public Premises controlled by that Authority; and]
(b) define the local limits within which or, the categories of public premises in respect of which, the Estate Officer shall exercise the powers conferred, and perform the duties imposed, on estate officers by or under this Act.
16. It is clear that the Central Government is empowered to define, inter alia, vide Clause (b) the local limits within which and the categories of public premises in respect of which the Estate Officer may exercise powers conferred, and perform the duties, imposed on the Estate Officers by order under this Act. There is no dispute that the Ministry of Textile has issued a notification dated 9th November, 1998 empowering the respondent No. 2 to exercise the powers conferred by or under the said Act within the local limits of the respective jurisdiction and in respect of the categories specified therein.
17. In exercise of powers under Section 3 of the Act of 1971, the Ministry of Textiles issued a notification dated 9-11-1998. The extract of which is reproduced hereinbelow:
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), and in supersession of the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Textiles number S.O. 787 (E) dated 20th October, 1981 and number S.O. 1019 (E) dated 29th November, 1987, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) except as respect things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government hereby appoints the Officers mentioned in column (1) of the Table below, being Officers equivalent to the rank of a Gazetted Officer of the Government, to be Estate Officers for the purposes of the said Act, who shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on the Estate Officers by or under the said Act, within the local limits of their respective jurisdiction in respect of the public premises specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) of the table.
Designation of the Officers Categories of Public Premises and
local limit of jurisdiction
5 Company Secretary/Chief All offices, premises, show
General Manager (Personnel rooms/retail shops, godowns,
and Administration), (in the residential quarters/accommodation,
absence of Company land including agricultural land
Secretary), National Textile owned, leased or held on lease by
(Maharashtra North) Ltd. National Textile Corporation
NTC House, 15, Narottam (Maharashtra North) Ltd. including
Morarjee Marg, Mumbai. the following mills together with
their offices, premises, retail shops,
godowns, workshops, factories,
residential quarters, premises/owned
lease or held on lease within or
outside the mills premises:
1. ... to
14. ...
15. Savatram Ramprasad Mills, Tilak
Road, Akola (Maharashtra); and
16. ...
18. Perusal of Section 3 of the Act would reveal that the Central Government is empowered to appoint Estate Officer for the purposes of the Act. Clause (b) of the said section permits the Central Government to define the local limits within which or the categories of the public premises in respect of which the Estate Officer shall exercise the powers conferred.
19. There is no dispute that the Ministry of Textiles has issued notification dated 9-11-1998 empowering respondent No. 2 to exercise powers conferred and perform duties imposed under the said Act within the local limits of respective jurisdiction and in respect of categories specified therein. The contention of the occupant, respondent No. 1, which is accepted by the learned Single Judge is that conferral of power is such that it not only defines the local limits within which the mill properties are situated but it also lays down that the powers so conferred must also be exercised while sitting within those local limits where the public premises are situate. The learned Single Judge relied upon the provisions of Section 3 and the notification issued thereunder.
20. The Issues:
In the above circumstances, the issue which falls for our consideration is, Whether it is necessary for the Estate Officer to exercise powers or try the proceedings under the Act while sitting within the local limits where the property in respect of which he exercises the jurisdiction is situate?
21. Consideration:
The answer to the above issue centres around the interpretation of second proviso to Section 3. In order to interpret the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, it is necessary to take aid of the well recognised principles of interpretation laid down by the Apex Court from time to time. We, therefore, propose to examine the various judgments of the Apex Court laying the rules of interpretation.
22. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Appa Balu Ingale and Ors. reported in 7995 Supp (4) SCC 469 in paragraphs 34 and 35 observed as under:
Judiciary acts as a bastion of the freedom and of the rights of the people. Jawaharlal Nehru, the architect of Modern India as early as in 1944 stated that the spirit of the age is in favour of equality though the practice denies it almost everywhere, yet the spirit of age triumphs. The judge must be atune with the spirit of his/her times. Power of judicial review, a constituent power has, therefore, been conferred upon the judiciary which constitutes one of the most important and potent weapons to protect the citizens against violation of social legal or constitutional rights. The judges are participants in the living stream of national life, steering the law between the dangers of rigidity on the one hand and formlessness on the other hand in the seemless web of fire. The great tides and currents which engulf the rest of the me do not turn aside in their course and pass the judges idly by. Law should subserve social purpose. Judge must be a jurist endowed with the legislator's wisdom, historian's search for truth, prophet's vision, capacity to respond to the needs of the present, resilience to cope with the demands of future and to decide objectively disengaging himself/herself from every personal influence or predilections. Therefore, the judges should adopt purposive interpretation of the dynamic concepts of the Constitution and the Act with its interpretative armoury to articulate the felt necessities of the time. The judge must also bear in mind that social legislation is not a document for fastidious dialects but a means of ordering the life of the people....
The Judges, therefore, should respond to the human situations to meet the felt necessities of the time and social needs; make meaningful the right to life and give effect to the Constitution and the will of the legislature. This Court as the vehicle of transforming the nation's life should respond to the nation's needs and interpret the law with pragmatism to further public welfare to make the constitutional animations a reality....
23. In the case of Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. Union of India , in paragraphs 11 and 12 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
In interpretation of the Constitution and the law, endeavour needs to be made to harmonise the individual interest with the paramount interest of the community keeping pace with the realities of ever-changing social and economic life of the community envisaged in the Constitution. Justice in the Preamble implies equality consistent with the competing demands between distributive justice with those of cumulative justice....
Law is the manifestation of principles of justice, equality and good conscience. Rule of law should establish a uniform pattern for harmonious existence in a society where every individual would exercise his rights to his best advantage to achieve excellence, subject to protective discrimination. The best advantage of one person could be the worst disadvantage to another. Law steps in to iron out such creases and ensures equality of protectiomto individuals as well as group liberties. Man's status is a creature of substantive as well as procedural law to which legal incidents would attach.
24. In the case of Ashok Kumar Gupta and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. , in paragraph 48 the Apex Court held as under:
The learned Judges, therefore, should respond to the human situations to meet the felt necessities of the time and social needs; make meaningful the right to life and give effect to the Constitution and the will of the legislature. This Court as the vehicle of transforming the nation's life should respond to the nation's needs, interpret the law with pragmatism to further public welfare to make the constitutional animations a reality and interpret the Constitution broadly and liberally enabling the citizens to enjoy the rights.
25. In the case of M.P. Gopalakrishnan Nair and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors. , in paragraphs 55 and 56 the Apex Court held as under:
A statute, it is trite, should not be interpreted in such a manner as would lead to absurdity. (See Nankishore Ganesh Joshi v. Commr., Municipal Corporation of Kalyan and Dombiwali and Ranjising Brahmajeetsingh Sharma v. State of Maharashtra.) It is necessary to bear in mind the principle "ut rest magis valeat quam pereat" in terms whereof a statute must be read in such a manner which would make it workable. (See Balram Kumawat v. Union of India, Nankishore Ganesh Joshi, para 19 and Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand SCC para 81, JT para 82.)
26. We would be failing in our duty if we do not take judicial notice of the fact that visiting Mumbai, residing at Mumbai and returning back from Mumbai to the place of residence is not an easy task for a common man. The money and the energy spent for an individual litigant or a petty trader is unaffordable. On the Contrary, the Estate Officer who also performs the job of supervision of the properties of the mills by actually visiting the properties of the mills at various places is entitled to all allowances and facilities.
27. Now, bearing in mind the law laid down by the Apex Court, and hardship which the occupants shall face in the event they are driven to any other place other than the place where the public premises are situate, we propose to interprete the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, the relevant part of which reads as under:
Provided further that an officer of a statutory authority shall only be appointed as an estate officer in respect of the Public Premises controlled by that Authority; and
(b) define the local limits within which or the categories of public premises in respect of which the estate officer shall exercise the powers conferred, and perform the duties imposed, on Estate officers by or under this Act.
(Emphasis supplied).
28. The question is, what is meant by the words "local limits within which". Clause (b) provides for two things- firstly, local limits and the categories of the premises in respect of which the jurisdiction is to be given to the Estate Officer. If Clause (b) is read deleting the words "the local limits within which or" then Sub-clause (b) would be referable only to the categories of public premises in respect of which the Estate Officer shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on him by or under the Act. The excluded portion of the section, i.e. "the local limits within which" denotes the area within which the exercise of powers conferred and duties imposed under the Act are to be performed.
29. Having said so, we fully subscribe to the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the words "local limits within which" will have to be construed to mean that the Estate Officer shall exercise powers conferred on him within those local limits only where the public premises is situate, that is to say, in the instant case, within local limits of District of Akola. In other words, the Estate Officer will have to hold the camp at the place where the mills or its properties are situated. That is the only practical view which deserves to be taken for the benefit of the litigant.
30. We have already pointed out that the tenants or the other occupants in the properties of the Mills cannot be expected to attend the camp at Mumbai. If these were to be allowed, all such litigants from Nagpur, Hinganghat, Ellichpur and Akola will have to attend the camp at Mumbai with their respective local advocates, which, in our opinion, would be impracticable, apart from being unaffordable. In the instant case, respondent No. 1 was proceeded ex parte being unable to visit Mumbai. On the contrary, the Estate Officer also eventually looks after the properties of the Mills by visiting those places often and he is extended all the facilities including allowances to visit these places and properties. In the present judicial reforms, we are talking of taking justice at the door step of the litigant. In the light of this judicial reforms and in the light of the attending circumstances, we construe the provisions of Section 3 as well as notification dated 9-11-1998 to mean that the Estate Officer will have to exercise his jurisdiction within the local limits of the places assigned to him in the said notification. In other words, the Estate Officer is expected to fix the cases for hearing at the places where the Mills or its properties are situated and ask the litigants to attend the camp at that place and then to proceed with the cases accordingly. We, therefore, uphold the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge and dismiss the appeal with costs quantified at Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. five thousands) to be paid to respondent No. 1 within a period of four weeks from today. Appeal accordingly stands disposed of.