1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO.150 OF 2010 Vilas Vardhamanrao Sanghai .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.R.D.Dada, Sr.Advocate i/b Mr.R.V.Govilkar for the petitioner Mr.R.J.Mane, A.G.P. for the respondents CORAM : J. N. Patel, Acting C.J., B.R.Gavai, J. DATE : February 2, 2010 P.C. : 1. The petitioner is an occupant of flat C on the 4 ‘ ’ th floor of the building known as Cadel court situated at 230-232 Cadel Road, 220A, Veer Savarkar Marg, Mahim, Mumbai. Indisputably, the flat was allotted to the petitioner while he was in service of the respondents. The petitioner retired as a Senior Inspector of Police and made an application to the respondents requesting them to transfer the tenancy right in his favour as the flat in question is a rent free quarter allotted to him as a service quarter. It appears that the said request of the petitioner was rejected by the Government and the same was duly notified to him vide its order dt.20.01.07. 2 2. It appears that the respondents have made repeated attempts to evict the petitioner but without any success. 3. The petitioner is constrained to approach this court once more by filing this writ petition with a prayer that the order dt.8.1.10 issued by the Commissioner of Police through the Assistant Commissioner of Police, HQ-3 directing the petitioner to pay the arrears and vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the flat be quashed and set aside on the ground that the respondents cannot exercise their powers by directly taking recourse to s.31(2) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. 4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that he may be evicted only after following due process of law and not by exercising their powers under section 31(2) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. 5. In reply, the respondents have filed an affidavit of Assistant Commissioner of Police, Head Quarter 3, thereby contending that the petitioner has filed an undertaking in this court in Writ Petition no.5180 of 2008 which has been disposed of only on the statement made by the respondents that they will not evict the petitioner without following due process of law. 6. We, therefore, dispose of this petition with a direction to the respondents to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before acting under the impugned notice and pass a speaking order in the matter and then act upon 3 the order. 7. Petitions stands disposed of accordingly. We make it clear that we have not examined the issues raised in the petition, particularly in respect of the powers exercised by the respondents under section 31(2) of the Bombay Police Act and all issues and contentions in the matter are kept open. (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) (B.R.GAVAI, J)