REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1727­1732   OF 2019

(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.24971­24976 of 2018)

Municipal Corporation of

Greater Mumbai & Ors.    ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Rafiqunnisa M. Khalifa(Deceased)

Through His Legal Heir 

Mr. Mohd.Muqueen Qureshi & Anr.       ….Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1.Leave granted.

2.These appeals are directed against the final

judgment and order dated 12.06.2018 of the High

Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition(c)

1

Nos.2639, 2184, 2642, 2641, 2644  and 2746 of

2016   whereby   the   High   Court   allowed   the   writ

petitions filed by the respondents herein.

3.A few   facts   need   mention   hereinbelow   to

appreciate the short controversy involved in these

appeals.

4.  Respondent No.1 in all the appeals (total 6)

were the writ petitioners and the appellants (1 to 6)

herein were the respondents in the six writ petitions

out of which these appeals arise.

5.The   six   respondents   individually   filed   six

separate   writ   petitions   against   the   Municipal

Corporation   of   Greater   Mumbai   (appellant   No.1

herein) and their officials including the Collector

(Respondent Nos.2 to 6) and sought common reliefs

in   their   individual   writ   petitions   against   the

appellants   on   identical,   factual   and   legal

pleadings/grounds.

2

6.According to six writ petitioners (respondent

No.   1   in   all   the   appeals),   one   was   running   his

restaurant   in   a   stall   under   the   name   “Yadgar

Restaurant” at Bandra Station Road. The other writ

petitioner was running a "Pan Shop" in a stall in

front of Yadgar Restaurant. The third writ petitioner

was running a food stall under the name "Lucky

Kabab Corner" at Bandra Station Road. The fourth

writ petitioner was running a food stall under the

name   "Danish   Kabab   Corner"   at   Bandra   Station

Road. The fifth writ petitioner was running a food

stall under the name "Gulsik­Kabab and sweetmeat

shop"   at   Bandra   Station   Road   and   sixth   writ

petitioner was running a food stall under the name

"A­1 Seak Kabab" at Bandra Station Road.

7.   All the six writ petitioners sought the relief of

mandamus on the identical allegations against the

appellants inter alia contending that the officials of

3

the  Municipal  Corporation  illegally removed their

stalls/structures on 26.05.2016 without any prior

notice to any of them. The writ petitioners alleged

that   the   action   on   the   part   of   the   Municipal

Corporation and their officials (appellants herein)

while   undertaking   the   removal   of     the   writ

petitioners'   food/pan   stalls   situated   at   Bandra

Station   Road   was   wholly   arbitrary,   illegal   and

against   the   relevant   provisions   of   the   Mumbai

Municipal   Corporation   Act,   1888   (hereinafter

referred to as "The Act"). 

8.It was alleged that each writ petitioner was

holding the health license issued by the Municipal

Corporation   (appellant   No.1   herein)   for   running

their respective stalls on the site in question and,

therefore, the appellant No.1­Municipal Corporation

was not justified and nor had any right under the

4

Act to initiate any action for the removal of their

stalls much less without any prior notice.  

9.It was alleged that the action to remove the

structures/stalls was not in conformity with any

provision of the Act inasmuch as it also violated the

principle of natural justice.  It was equally in breach

of Article 14 of the Constitution. 

10.The   writ   petitioners,   on   the   aforementioned

allegations, claimed the reliefs that the appellant

No.1­Municipal Corporation be directed to put the

writ petitioners in possession of the site in question

or in the alternative to provide them with any other

suitable site in the city where they could start their

business afresh and further direct the appellants to

pay   to   each   writ   petitioner   a   reasonable

compensation for the loss of their business and the

inconvenience   caused   to   them   on   account   of

5

impugned   removal   done   by     appellant   No.1­

Municipal Corporation on 26.05.2018.

11.The appellants opposed the writ petitions by

filing   reply   in   some   of   the   writ   petitions.   The

appellants  inter   alia  contended   that   they   were

compelled to take the action under Section 314 of

the Act because these stalls/structures were found

erected on the public sewer. It was contended that

since   these   stalls/structures   were   causing

hindrance in cleaning the public sewer lines and

were   found   to   have   been   erected   without   any

sanctioned plan, they had to be removed in public

interest.   It   was   also   contended   that   these

stalls/structures   were   also   causing   traffic

congestion on Bandra Station Road. It was lastly

contended that before taking the action, the health

licenses   granted   to   the   writ   petitioners   were

6

cancelled and a circular was issued on 05.10.2015

for removal of these unauthorized stalls/structures.

12.By impugned order, the High Court allowed

the writ petitions. It was held that the appellant

(Municipal Corporation) was not able to prove that

the case in question falls under Section 314 of the

Act. The High Court, therefore, struck down the

action   taken   by   the   Municipal   Corporation   and

issued   9   directions   in   the   nature   of   mandamus

against the appellants. These 9 directions read as

under: 

(i)We   direct   the   Mumbai   Municipal

Corporation to allot to the Petitioners

stalls/shops   of   the   same   size   which

were demolished on 26

th

  May, 2016 in

the same locality or in nearby locality;

(ii)The   locality   shall   be   such   that   the

petitioners are in a position to carry on

the   same   business   which   they   were

carrying   on   in   the   demolished

structures;

(iii)The   Allotment   shall   be   made   to   the

Petitioners as expeditiously as possible

7

and in any event, within a period of two

months   from   the   date   on   which   this

judgment and order is uploaded;

(iv)The Petitioners will be liable to pay the

fee/charges, if any, which were payable

in respect of the demolished structures;

(v)On   the   failure   of   the   Municipal

Corporation   to   erect/allot   the

stalls/shops   as   directed   above   within

the period of two months from the date

on   which   this   judgment   and   order   is

uploaded,   it   will   be   open   to   the

Petitioners   to   re­construct   their

structures/stalls   at   the   places   where

the same were situated;

(vi)However,   the   re­construction   shall   be

made by using the same construction

material   and   that   also   with   advance

notice   at   least   of   48   hours   to   the

Designated   Officer   of   the   concerned

Ward   who   or   his   nominee   shall   be

entitled to remain present at the time

of re­construction;

(vii)We make it clear that in respect of re­

constructed shops, the Petitioners will

not be entitled to claim any equity.  If

the   original   stalls   which   were

demolished   were   illegal,   it   will   be

always   open   for   the   Municipal

Corporation   to   initiate   an   action   of

demolition of the re­constructed stalls

in accordance with law;

8

(viii)As far as the prayer for compensation is

concerned,   it   will   be   always   open   for

the   Petitioners   to   make   appropriate

representation   to   the   Municipal

Corporation   along   with   all   the

particulars   and   documents.     If   such

representations   are   made,   the

Municipal Corporation shall decide the

same within a period of three months

from   the   date   of   filing   of   the

representations;

(ix)The Petitions are made absolute in the

above terms with no order as to costs.”

13.The  Municipal  Corporation  felt  aggrieved by

the   impugned   order   and   has   filed   the   present

appeals by way of special leave in this Court.   

14.So,   the   short   question,   which   arises   for

consideration in these appeals, is whether the High

Court was justified in allowing the respondents’ writ

petitions and issuing 9 directions quoted above.

15. Heard Mr. Shyam Divan and Mr. Atul Chitale,

learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr.

9

Sunil   Fernandes   and   Ms.   Deepa   M.   Kulkarni,

learned counsel for the respondents.

16.Having   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the

parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we

are   inclined   to   allow   the   appeals,   set   aside   the

impugned order and dismiss the writ petitions.

17.Sections 312 and 314 of the Act, which are

relevant   for   disposal   of   these   appeals,   read   as

under:

“312.   Prohibition of structures or fixtures

which cause obstruction in streets.

(1)No   person   shall,   except   with   the

permission   of   the   Commissioner   under

section 310 or 317, erect or set up any wall,

fence,   rail,   post,   step,   booth   or   other

structure or fixture in or upon any street or

upon or over any open channel, drain, well or

tank   in   any   street   so   as   to   form   an

obstruction to, or an encroachment upon, or

a projection over, or to occupy, any portion

of such street, channel, drain, well or tank.

(2)Nothing   in   this   section   shall   be

deemed to apply to any erection or thing to

which clause(c) of section 322 applies.

10

“314.     Power   to   remove   without   notice

anything   erected,   deposited   or   hawked   in

contravention of Section 312, 313 or 313A.

The   Commissioner   may,   without   notice,

cause to be removed­

(a)any wall, fence, rail, post, step, booth

or other structure or fixture which shall be

erected or set up in or upon any street, or

upon or over any open channel, drain, well or

tank   contrary   to   the   provisions   of   sub­

section(1)   of   section   312,   after   the   same

comes   into   force   in   the   city   or   in   the

suburbs,   after   the   date   of   the   coming   into

force of the Bombay Municipal (Extension of

Limits) Act, 1950 or in the extended suburbs

after the date of the coming into force of the

Bombay   Municipal   Further   Extension   of

Limits and Schedule BBA (Amendment) Act,

1956;

(b)any stall, chair, bench, box, ladder, bale,

board or shelf, or any other thing whatever

placed,   deposited,   projected,   attached,   or

suspended in, upon from or to any place in

contravention   of   sub­section(1)   of   section

313;

(c)any article whatsoever hawked or exposed

for sale in any public place or in any public

street in contravention of the provisions of

Section 313A and any vehicle, package, box,

board, shelf or any other thing in or on which

such article is placed or kept for the purpose

of sale.

11

(d)any person, unauthorisedly  occupying or

wrongfully in possession of any public land

from such land together with all the things

and   material   unauthorisedly   placed,

projected or deposited on such land by such

person

Provided that, the Commissioner shall,

while   executing   such   removal,   allow   such

person to take away his personal belongings

and   household   articles,   such   as   cooking

vessels, bed and beddings of the family, etc.”

18.Section 312 of the Act prohibits erecting of any

structure or fixture of any nature such as ­ wall,

fence, rail, post, step, booth upon any street or over

any open channel, drain, well or tank in any street

which   causes   obstruction   or   encroachment   or

projection   or   to   occupy   portion   of   such   street,

channel, drain, well or tank as the case may be.

Only   those   structures/fixtures   are   saved   from

Section 312 of the Act which are erected with the

permission   of   the   Commissioner   granted   under

Sections 310 and 317 of the Act. In other words,

12

Section   312   has   no   application   to   those

structures/fixtures which are erected by the person

with   the   permission   of   the   Commissioner   under

Sections 310 and 317 of the Act.   

19.Section 314(1)  with which we are concerned in

this case confers power on the Commissioner to

remove any wall, fence, rail, post, step, booth or

other structure or fixture which is found erected or

set up on any street, open channel, drain, well or

tank contrary to the provisions of sub­Section (1) of

Section 312 of the Act after coming into force the

provisions   of   Bombay   Municipal   (Extension   of

limits) Act, 1950 or in the extended suburbs after

coming into force Further Extension of Limits and

Schedule BBA (Amendment) Act, 1956. 

20.In other words, in order to exercise the power

under Section 314 (1) of the Act, two conditions

must be present.   First, the disputed wall, fence,

13

rail, post, step, booth or any other type of structure

or fixture, as the case may be, is erected or set up

on any public street or open channel or drain or

well or tank; and Second, any such structure or

fixture, as the case may be, is erected or set up in

the city or suburbs contrary to the provisions of

Section 312(1) of the Act after coming into force the

two Acts specified in sub­section (1). 

21. Coming   now   to   the   facts   of   the   case,   it   is

apposite to mention here that the appellants filed

certain additional documents in these appeals such

as map and the photographs of the site in question

in support of their case. These documents were not

filed before the High Court as is clear from the

perusal of the impugned order. These documents

were allowed to be taken on record being relevant

and material for deciding the issue involved in these

appeals. The respondents, however, did not dispute

14

the   veracity   of   these   documents   and,   therefore,

these documents remained indisputable.

22.Perusal of the counter affidavit, map and the

photographs of the site in question clearly show

that, first, the stalls/structures of the respondents

were   found   erected   on   the   sewer   line/chamber;

Second, these structures/stalls were not erected by

the   respondents   with   the   permission   of   the

Commissioner as required under Section 312 (1) of

the Act; Third, no sanctioned map was filed by the

respondents to prove that the structures were legal;

and   fourth,   the   stalls/structures   were   causing

obstruction   to   public   at   large   and   were   causing

encroachment on the street (Bandra Station Road),

which is very narrow.

23.In the light of the aforementioned four factors

being present, we are of the considered opinion that

the   appellant   (Commissioner)   was   justified   in

15

invoking the powers under Section 314 of the Act

against the respondents on 26.05.2018 for removal

of   their   stalls/structures.     Since   the   action   to

remove   the   stalls/structures   was   taken   under

Section 314 of the Act, it was not necessary to give

any   prior   notice   to   the   respondents   though   a

circular was issued on 05.10.2015 requesting the

respondents to remove their stalls/structures from

the site in question.

24. We are, therefore, unable to find any illegality

or arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the action

taken by the Commissioner under Section 314 of

the   Act,   which   resulted   in   removal   of   the

respondents’ stalls/structures.

25.  Learned   counsel   for   the   respondents,

however, argued that since the respondents were

granted health licenses under the Act for selling

16

their   foodstuff   in   these   stalls/structures,   their

removal from the site in question was illegal.

26.We find no merit in this submission. In our

opinion, grant of health license has nothing to do

with erection of stall/structure and its removal. In

order to exercise the power under Section 314 of the

Act,   the   conditions   specified   therein   need   to   be

satisfied. Section 314 nowhere says that if a person

is carrying on any activity in such stall/structure

on the strength of health license on the street, or

open   channel,   drain,   well   or   tank,   no   action   to

remove such stall/structure can be taken against

such person. The action under Section 314 can be

attacked   successfully   only   by   showing   that   the

person   had   erected   his   stall/structure   with   the

permission   of   the   Commissioner   granted   under

Section 312(1) of the Act. Such is, however, not the

case here.

17

27.In our opinion, the High Court was, therefore,

not   justified   in   striking   down   the   action   of   the

appellant (Commissioner) taken under Section 314

of the Act for removal of their stalls/structures on

26.05.2018.  The High Court was also not justified

in   issuing   a   mandamus   directing   the   appellant­

Municipal   Corporation   to   provide   to   each

respondent some suitable land either in the same

area or in adjacent area.

28.It is a settled principle of law that a writ of

mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution is

issued, when there is a right and correspondingly

there is a legal duty to perform. In this case, neither

there was any right (contractual or legal) in writ

petitioners’ favour and nor there is any provision in

the Act which casts an obligation to provide any

alternate land to the respondents. 

18

29.We also do not find any scheme/policy made

in this behalf by the appellants or the State, which

could be enforced by the respondents. Moreover,

once this Court holds that the action taken under

Section 314 of the Act against the respondents is

legal and proper, there is no occasion to issue any

mandamus much less the mandamus of the nature

issued by the High Court.

30.In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals

succeed and are accordingly allowed. The impugned

order   is   set   aside.   As   a   consequence,   the   writ

petitions   out   of   which   these   appeals   arise   are

dismissed.

        ………...................................J.

[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

....……..................................J.

        [DINESH MAHESHWARI]

New Delhi;

February 18, 2019.

19