Radheshyam S/O Laxminarayan ... vs Savatram Rampratap Mills And Anr.
2003 Latest Caselaw 1211 Bom

JUDGMENT

S.A. Bobde, J.

1. Heard Mr. C. A. Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G. C. Choubey, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 .

2. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.

3. This petition is directed against the notice issued by the respondent, the Estate Officer dated 4-4-2002 directing the petitioner to appear before the said respondent at Bombay. The notice is issued in respect of the proceedings taken by the respondents under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Rules, 1971 against the petitioner in respect of a shop within the premises of Savatram Rampratap Mills situated Tilak Road, Akola. The only point raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 2 cannot issue any notice requiring the petitioner to appear at Bombay and to hold the proceeding at Bombay. Therefore, what falls for consideration is Section 3 reads as follows :--

"3. Appointment of Estate Officers. -- The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, --

(a) appoint such persons, 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 pf the Rajya Sabha and no officer of the Secretariat of the Lok Sabha shall be so appointed except after consultation with 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.

4. 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 the 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 there.

5. It is submitted on behalf of petitioner that the conferral of powers is such that it not only defines the local limits within which the powers should be exercised but the powers must also be exercised while sitting within those local limits.

6. This submission on behalf of the petitioner seems to be correct. The proviso to Section 3 in clear terms empowers the Central Government to appoint an Estate Officer and "define the local limits within which" the Estate Officer shall exercise the powers conferred and perform duties in posts. It also empowers the Central Government to specify the categories of public premises in respect of which the Estate Officer shall exercise the powers conferred. On a plain reading of the proviso, it is clear that the law contemplates that the Estate Officer shall exercise the powers conferred on them within the local limits defined by the Central Government and categories of public premises in respect of which they are empowered to do so, while sitting in those local limits. It is important to note that the Act also provides for an appeal against the order of the Estate Officer. That appeal lies before the "District Judge" of the district in which the public premises are situate".

7. The relevant part of the section reads as follows :

"9 (1) An appeal shall lie from every order of the estate officer made in respect of any public premises under [Section 5 of Section 5B [or Section 5C]] or Section 7 to an appellate officer who shall be the district judge of the district in which the public premises are situate or such other judicial officer in that district of not less than ten years' standing as the district judge may designate in this behalf."

8. Section 3 of the Act, which defines the limits within which the Estate Officer may exercise the jurisdiction must be construed in harmony with the provision that provides for an appeal against the orders of Estate Officer. If the appeal provided is only to a District Judge of the District within the local limits of which the public premises are situated, it would be harmonious and consistent to read Section 3 to mean that the Estate Officer are empowered to exercise their powers within the local limits defined by the Central Government. In the present case Notification No. S. O. 957(E) dated 9th November, 1998 issued by Registrar of Textile Mills, reads as follows :

"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 the 20th October, 1981 and number S.O. 1019 (E) dated the 29th November, 1987, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section 3, Sub-Section (ii) except as respects 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 the respective jurisdiction in respect of the public premises specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) of the table:--

Table

Designation of the Officers Categories of Public Premises and local limit of jurisdiction.

1. ....

2. ....

3. ....

4. ....

5. Company Secretary/Chief General Manager (Personnel and Administration )( in the absence of Company Secretary), National Textile ( Maharashtra north Limited NTC House, Narottam Morarjee Marg, Mumbai.

All offices, premises, show rooms/ retail shops, godowns residential quarter/accomodation, land icluding agricultural land owned, leased or held on lease by National Textile Corporation (Maharashtra North Limited) including the following mills together with their offices, premises, retail shops, godowns, workshops, factories, residential quarters, premises/owned leased or held on lease within or outside the mills premises.

9. The relevant public premises are dealt with at Item 15 reads as follows :

"15. Savatram Ramprasad Mills, Tilak Road, Akola-444001 (Maharashtra)"

10. The notification contemplates that the Estate Officer shall exercise the powers conferred and perform duties imposed on them within the local limits of their respective jurisdiction in respect of the public premises specified in the corresponding entry.

11. In this context, it would be useful to note that wherever the law contemplates that a Judge may exercise powers in respect of the matter outside his territorial jurisdiction. There is specific provision to that effect in such law, which is not the case in Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. For instance, Section 12A of Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1869 specifically empowers the District Judge or Additional District Judge who has been appointed to be a Judge of another District also to hold his Court and transact civil business at such place or places in either district as he may deem fit. It reads as follows :--

"12-A. The [State] Government may appoint the District Judge or the Additional District Judge in any district to be also a Joint District Judge, another district. Such Joint District Judge may hold his Court and transact civil business at such place or places in either district as he may deem fit."

Similarly, as regards civil Judges.

12. Further, Section 19 of Bombay Civil Courts Act:

"The [[State] Government] may, by notification in the [Official Gazette] invest an Additional District Judge with all or any of the powers of a District Judge within a particular part of district, and may, by like notification, from time to time determine and alter the limits of such party.

The jurisdiction of an Additional District Judge so invested shall pro tanto exclude the jurisdiction of the District Judge from within the said limits.

Every Additional District Judge so invested shall ordinarily hold his Court at such place within the local limits of his jurisdiction as may be determined by the [[State]Government], and may, with the previous sanction of the High Court, hold it at any other place within such limits.

13. The above provision also clearly provides that Additional District Judge shall hold his Court at such place within the local limits of his jurisdiction and specifically empowers to do so only at the previous sanction of High Court. The point being, ordinarily judicial power or quasi judicial power such as those conferred on the estate officer must be exercised within the local limits of their jurisdiction.

14. In this view of the matter, the notice dated 4-4-2003 issued by the respondent No. 2, who has been appointed as Estate Officer for the respondent No. 1 Mills at Akola, the petitioner to appear before him at Mumbai is hereby quashed and set aside.

15. The respondent No. 2 shall be entitled to proceed with the matter at Akola.

16. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.