:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 765 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 765 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 765 OF 2008 M/s. Global Tenants Welfare Association & Ors. ..Petitioners versus Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents WITH WITH WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 764 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 764 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 764 OF 2008 M/s. Global Marketing & Anr. ..Petitioners versus Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. P. K. Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. M. Rathod and Ms. S. Ranpise i/b. M/s. S. K. Srivastava & Co. for the Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 765 of 2008. Mr. V. A. Thorat, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jimmy Avasia i/b. Ms. S. Shaikh for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 764 of 2008. Mr. A. C. Singh with Mr. G. Hariharan and Mr. S.C. Pal i/b. Dr. T. C. Kaushik for the Respondents. CORAM : S.B. MHASE & CORAM : S.B. MHASE & CORAM : S.B. MHASE & A.A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ. A.A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ. A.A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ. DATE : 26TH JUNE, 2008. DATE : 26TH JUNE, 2008. DATE : 26TH JUNE, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard both the sides. 2. The Executive Engineer, Mumbai Central Division No. VI, Central Public Works Department is :2: the Estate Officer in respect of the local limits of the premises under the Administrative control of the Central Public Works Department situated within the local limits of his jurisdiction. However, on 7.6.2007 he issued Notices in respect of the premises of the petitioners i.e. Plot Nos. 7 to 10, Palton Road, known as Sara Sahara Complex, Mumbai. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that the said officer had no authority and jurisdiction as per the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 more specifically in view of Section 3 to issue the notices. It appears that the Government was also aware of this aspect and they have issued a Notification dated 8.1.2008 and thereby have empowered Executive Engineer, Mumbai Central Division No. VI to deal with the premises of the petitioners. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even though this Notification has been issued, the exercise under Section 4 of the said Act will have to be conducted by the said Officer denovo and the proceedings earlier started cannot continue. :3: 5. Learned counsel for the respondents tried to submit that it was a lack of jurisdiction and that has been subsequently vested in the officer concerned and therefore the acts which he has done are ratified. 6. We are not in agreement with the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents because Section 4 contemplates a formation of an opinion that the petitioners are in unauthorised occupation of the government premises only and thereafter the notice as provided in Form ’A’ is required to be issued. The formation of opinion made by the respondent officer when he had no jurisdiction cannot be said to be an exercise under Section 4 of the said Act. 7. Therefore whatever the earlier proceedings have been completed by the respondents, are hereby quashed and set aside and the officer is hereby directed to start denovo proceedings in accordance with the provisions of law. Both the petitions are disposed of accordingly. :4: (A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J.) (A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J.) (A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J.) (S. B. MHASE, J.) (S. B. MHASE, J.) (S. B. MHASE, J.)