Bombay High Court
Hiraben Keshavji Satra And Ors vs Estate Officer Bank Of Baroda And Ors on 4 March, 2024
Author: Gauri Godse
Bench: Gauri Godse
2024:BHC-AS:12849
20.5979.23 wp.docx
Iresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5979 OF 2023
1. Hiraben Keshavji Satra
Age 74 years, Indian inhabitant
2. Dhiraj Keshavji Satra
Age 50 years, Indian inhabitant
3. Prakash Keshavji Satra
Age: 46 yrs. Of Indian Inhabitant
4. Central Stores
through the heirs and representatives
of late Keshavji Jivan Satra,
Shop No. 3, Dena Bank Building,
3rd Pasta Lane, Colaba Causeway,
Mumbai 400 005 .....Petitioners
Vs.
1. Estate Officer, Bank of Baroda
(Erstwhile Dena Bank)
Claiming to be appointed under the
Public Premises Eviction of
Unauthorized Occupants Act, 1971,
having its office at 17, Horniman Circle,
Fort, Mumbai - 400 023.
2. Bank of Baroda
(Erstwhile Dena Bank)
A body corporate constituted and
established under the provision of the
Banking Companies (Acquisition and
Transfer of Undertaking) Act 1970,
and having its head office at Mumbai
and its General Administrative
1/16
20.5979.23 wp.docx
Department at Dena Corporate
Centre, 2nd floor, C-10, G-Block,
Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051
3. Kanji Narayanji Somaya
Shop No. 3, Dena Bank Building,
3rd Pasta Lane, Colaba Causeway,
Mumbai 400 005 .....Respondents
Mr. Surel Shah a/w Mr. Bhavin H. Gada and Mr. Dhaval M. Visawadia
i/b Harakchand and Co. for the petitioners
Mrs. Rathina Maravarman for respondent no. 2
CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.
DATE : 4th MARCH 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. Rule.
2. Mrs Rathina Maravarman waives service for respondent no. 2.
Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final disposal.
3. Heard. This petition takes an exception to the order passed by
the Estate Officer, rejecting the petitioners' application objecting to the
jurisdiction of the Estate Officer to try and entertain the proceedings
initiated by respondent no. 2 against the petitioners under The Public
20.5979.23 wp.docx
Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 ('the said
Act').
4. Respondent no. 2 initiated the proceedings under the said Act in
June 2012. On 4th August 2022, the petitioners filed an application
objecting to the jurisdiction of the Estate Officer on the ground that
there is no notification issued appointing the Estate Officer in terms of
Section 3 of the said Act. An application objecting to jurisdiction was
filed by the petitioners on the ground that the letter of appointment
produced by respondent no. 2 only indicates that competent authority
of respondent no. 2 has appointed the present officer as an Estate
Officer. It is contended in the application that respondent no. 2 has
relied upon gazette notification, whereby, the designation of the Estate
Officer is indicated, however, there is no specific appointment of the
present Estate Officer. Hence, it is contended that the present Estate
Officer cannot be termed as an officer appointed in terms of Section 3
of the said Act.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no
dispute on the gazette notification dated 18 th August 1993, whereby
20.5979.23 wp.docx
"The Chief Manager, Premises and Equipments, Bank of Baroda,
Central Office, Ballard Pier, Bombay" is the designated officer
appointed under Section 3 of the said Act. He further submits that it is
also not disputed that the legal jurisdiction of the said designated
officer is regarding the premises situated in Bombay and New Bombay.
Learned counsel pointed out that respondent no. 2 had produced on
record a letter of appointment dated 15 th January 2021 indicating that
the present Estate Officer was deployed as Chief Manager, Premises
and Equipment by respondent no. 2 and it decided to appoint him as
Estate Officer under the said Act with effect from 14 th January 2021.
He submitted that the said letter of appointment indicates that it is
issued by respondent no. 2 with an address of Baroda Corporate
Centre. He thus, submitted that respondent no. 2 is not empowered to
appoint an Estate Officer and only the Central Government can
appoint an Estate Officer in terms of Section 3 of the said Act.
6. Learned counsel further pointed out that respondent no. 2, for
the first time, in this court has produced a letter dated 8 th January 2021
stating that the present officer was appointed as Chief Manager,
20.5979.23 wp.docx
Premises and Equipment, BCC, Mumbai for the estate management
department. Thus, by relying upon the specific designation as notified
in the gazette notification dated 18 th August 1993, he submitted that
the only officer empowered to try and entertain the proceedings is as
stated in serial no. 1 of the said notification which reads as under:
"Designation of the Officer Categories of public premises
and local limits of jurisdiction
1. The Chief Manager, Premises Premises belonging to, or taken
and Equipments, Bank of Baroda, on leaseby, or on behalf of Bank
Central Office, Ballard Pier, Of Baroda and situated in
Bombay. Bombay."
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon various
grounds raised in the application filed before the Estate Officer as well
as the ground raised in the present petition. He relied upon ground
raised in clause (X) in the memo of petition and submitted that the
appointment letter dated 15th January 2021 relied upon by respondent
no. 2 appointing respondent no. 1 as an Estate Officer under the said
Act is produced before this Court for the first time. He thus, submitted
that the present Estate Officer, not being the officer appointed in terms
of Section 3 of the said Act, does not have any jurisdiction to try and
20.5979.23 wp.docx
entertain the proceedings.
8. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 submitted that the
gazette notification dated 18th August 1993 notifies the designation of
an officer empowered to try and entertain the proceedings under the
said Act. She submitted that there is no requirement to independently
appoint an officer by way of a gazette notification under Section 3 of
the said Act. She submitted that the present Estate Officer is an officer
holding the rank as notified in the said notification. She submitted that
though the letter dated 8th January 2021 is produced before this court
for the first time, the order dated 15 th January 2021 indicating that the
present Estate Officer is an officer who is appointed as an Estate
Officer under the said Act, was already produced before Estate Officer
before whom the application objecting to the jurisdiction was filed by
the petitioners. She submitted that since the beginning, proceedings
have been conducted by the officer of the rank as notified in the said
notification. She submitted that even the present Estate Officer holds
the rank as notified in the said notification. She by referring to the
application made by the petitioners submitted that such an objection
20.5979.23 wp.docx
was never raised when the earlier officer of the same rank had
conducted the proceedings. By referring to the grounds of objections
raised in the application, she submitted that the petitioners have
sought to argue that there has to be a separate notification appointing
a particular officer as an Estate Officer. She submitted that in the
amended grounds of challenge, the petitioners have raised a ground
that a specific appointment of the present officer is not seen in the
gazette notification relied upon by respondent no. 2. She submitted
that there is no substance in the said arguments made on behalf of the
petitioners. She submitted that as per the requirement under Section 3
of the said Act, the rank of the officer who can conduct inquiry under
the said Act is notified and that notification in the name of an officer is
not the requirement under Section 3 of the said Act.
9. In support of her submissions, she relied upon the decision of
this Court in the case of Crawford Bayley and Co. and Ors Vs. The
Union of India (Uoi) and Ors1. She submitted that said decision was
pertaining to a challenge to the notification issued under Section 3 of
1 2003 (6) BomCR 112
20.5979.23 wp.docx
the said Act. She submitted that this Court has in detail discussed the
requirement of an appointment of the Estate Officer under Section 3
and held that the requirement is to notify the designation of the officer
and there is no requirement to notify the name of a person who is
empowered to hold the inquiry under the said Act. She submitted that
the decision of this court has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court.
10. I have considered the submissions made by the parties. Perused
the record. Application filed by the petitioners objecting to the
jurisdiction categorically raises an objection that respondent no. 2 has
not produced an order of Central Government appointing the present
officer as contemplated and provided under Section 3 of the said Act.
The application further raises an objection that the gazette notification
relied upon by respondent no. 2 only indicates the designation of the
officer but the specific appointment of the present officer is not seen in
the gazette notification.
11. However, despite the said objections that were raised before the
Estate Officer, learned counsel for the petitioners at the time of
20.5979.23 wp.docx
arguments submitted that even if it is accepted that a specific order in
the name of the present officer is not the requirement under Section 3
of the said Act, he submitted that the letter of appointment relied upon
by respondent no. 2 indicates that respondent no. 2 has appointed the
present officer under the said Act to handle the cases under the said
Act. He thus submitted that the competent authority of respondent no.
2 has no jurisdiction to appoint the Estate Officer under the said Act
and only the Central Government is empowered to appoint the Estate
Officer under Section 3 of the said Act.
12. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute that by
notification dated 18th August 1993, the designation of an officer
empowered to decide the cases under the said Act has been notified.
The letter relied upon by respondent no. 2 in support of the
submissions that the present officer is an officer appointed as an
Estate Officer indicates that the present Estate Officer has been
informed by the said letter that according to his appointment as Chief
Manager, Premises and Equipments, the competent authority of
respondent no. 2 has decided to appoint him as an Estate Officer
20.5979.23 wp.docx
under the said Act. A perusal of the said letter dated 15 th January 2021
thus indicates that the present Estate Officer has been deployed as
Chief Manager, the Premises and Equipments, and as he has been
deployed as Chief Manager, the Premises and Equipments, he has
been informed by the said letter that he is appointed as an Estate
Officer under the said Act. Thus, the said letter is only for intimating the
said officer that since he is deployed as Chief Manager, the Premises
and Equipments, he is further informed that he is appointed as Estate
Officer under the said Act. Thus, considering the contents of the said
letter, it cannot be interpreted to mean that the said officer does not
hold the rank of the designated officer as notified under the said
notification. Contents of the said letter dated 15 th January 2021
indicate that he is holding the rank of the Chief Manager, Premises
and Equipments. Thus, intimating the said officer about his
appointment as Estate Officer under the said Act is only an intimation
in terms of the notification. Thus, in my view, the said letter is only an
intimation to the concerned officer that he is required to work as an
Estate Officer, as the Chief Manager, Premises and Equipments is the
20.5979.23 wp.docx
designated officer who is empowered to hold the enquiry under the
said Act in terms of the notification dated 18th August 1993.
13. Interpreting the letter as sought to be interpreted by learned
counsel for the petitioners would amount to a far-stretched
interpretation of the said letter of intimation. It is not even the case of
the petitioners in their application that the said Estate Officer does not
hold the rank as notified in the said notification. A perusal of the
application objecting to jurisdiction indicates that the objection raised
on behalf of the petitioners is that there is no separate gazette
notification appointing the present Estate Officer.
14. Considering the aforesaid facts, the principles of law laid down in
the decision of this Court relied upon by the learned counsel for
respondent no. 2 squarely applies to the present case. This Court in
the said decision of Crawford Bayley and Co. and Ors in paragraph 14
has held that
"......It is further to be seen here that in terms of
the provisions of Section 3 of the Public Premises
Act, the Central Government is obliged to appoint
20.5979.23 wp.docx
only an Officer of the respondent No. 3 as Estate
Officer in respect of the premises of the respondent
No. 3. Therefore, the only thing that was to be
decided by the Central Government while making
appointment of Estate Officer in relation to the
premises of the respondent No. 3 was to decide
the rank of the Officer who will exercise the power
under Section 3. Thus, the area of discretion
vested in the Central Government in the
appointment of Estate Officer under Section 3 of
the Act in relation to the premises of the
respondent No. 3 is extremely narrow inasmuch as
it is only to the extent of deciding the rank of the
Officer who is to exercise the power........"
15. The arguments as sought to be raised on behalf of the
petitioners are squarely answered in the said decision. Thus, in the
present case the requirement of appointing an Estate Officer under
Section 3 of the said Act is complied with by the Central Government
by issuing the notification dated 18th August 1993. There is no dispute
raised on the validity of the said notification. The said notification
notifies the designation of the officer for the purpose of the said Act,
20.5979.23 wp.docx
and also defines the jurisdictional local limits and categories of
premises in respect of which the Estate Officer shall exercise the
powers conferred and perform the duties under the said Act. Thus, it is
clear that the present Estate Officer holding the designated rank of the
officer notified by the said notification is empowered to exercise all the
powers and perform the duties under the said Act. By letter dated 15 th
January 2021, respondent no. 2 has only informed the concerned
officer that since he is appointed as Chief Manager, Premises and
Equipments, he will be working as an Estate Officer under the said Act.
16. I have not been shown any record and/or any objection stating
that the said Estate Officer is not holding the rank of the Chief
Manager, the Premises and Equipments. There is neither any
objection indicating that the said officer is not an officer within the
jurisdiction of Bombay and New Bombay as notified by the said
notification. So far as the objection raised regarding pointing out the
address in the notification i.e. Central Office, Bombay is concerned,
learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 submitted that the
address mentioned in the letter dated 15 th January 2021 is only
20.5979.23 wp.docx
because there is a change in the office address and that there is no
change in the jurisdiction. Thus, the change in address in the letter
dated 15th January 2021 cannot be interpreted to mean that the
present Estate Officer is not the Chief Manager, Premises and
Equipments as notified in the said notification.
17. The Estate Officer in the impugned order has considered all the
objections raised on behalf of the petitioners. He has referred to the
relevant sections of the said Act and the particulars of appointment of
the Estate Officer under the said Act and the gazette notification. Thus,
I do not see any error or any illegality in the impugned order warranting
any intervention under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I do not
find any substance in the arguments raised on behalf of the
petitioners.
18. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramchandra Keshav Adke
(Dead) by Lrs and others Vs. Govind Joti Chavare and Others 2. The
said decision is relied upon in support of the submissions that once
2 (1975) 1 Supreme Court Cases 559
20.5979.23 wp.docx
there is a rule requiring to do a certain thing in a certain way, it has to
be done in that way. There cannot be any debate on the proposition of
law laid down in the said decision. The said decision and the
observations relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in
paragraph 25 of the said decision are with reference to the facts of the
said case, which were arising out of the proceedings under the
Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. In the said
decision, considering the peculiar facts of that case, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has relied upon the well-established principles of law
laid down in the case of Nazir Ahmed V. The King Emperor 3. So far as
the present case is concerned, I do not see any reason for interpreting
the letter dated 15th January 2021 as sought to be interpreted by the
learned counsel for the petitioners. Notification dated 18 th August 1993,
notifying the designation of the officer to be appointed under Section 3
of the said Act is clear and I do not see any reason to disbelieve the
stand of respondent no. 2 that the present Estate Officer is the officer
holding the rank as designated by the said notification. Hence, the
reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the
3 AIR 1936 PC 253 (2)
20.5979.23 wp.docx
decision of Ramchandra Keshav Adke is of no assistance to the
arguments raised on behalf of the petitioners.
19. Thus, there is no substance in the arguments made on behalf of
the petitioners. The petition is devoid of any merits.
20. For the reasons stated above, the petition is dismissed.
21. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners requests to
extend the interim relief granted by this court on 2 nd May 2023. The
said interim relief is extended for a period of four weeks from today.
[GAURI GODSE, J.]
Signed by: Iresh S. Mashal
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 18/03/2024 12:58:54
