-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7314 OF 2009 M/s. Bombay Cycle & Motor Agency Ltd. ... Petitioners versus The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others ... Respondents Mr. Rafiq Dada, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rajan Jayakar, instructed by Jayakars, for the petitioners. Mr. V.Y. Sanglikar for respondent No.1. Mr. Minoo Siodia, instructed by M/s. Rustomji & Ginwala, for respondent No.3. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & R.G. KETKAR, JJ. DATE: MARCH 29, 2010. P.C. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed that an appropriate, writ, order or direction may be issued in the nature of certiorari or any other directing the first and fourth respondents to produce all the papers and proceedings in connection with the subject matter. 2. The petitioners are facing proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as “the Act”. The petitioners are also served with notice under Section 7 of the said Act in connection with the fixation of damages. Mr. Rafiq Dada, learned Senior Counsel, during the course of hearing submitted that the show cause notice was -2- issued by which certain amount was claimed towards damages and that amount is on the basis of the report given by the registered Valuer firm, M/s. K.C. Gandhi & Company. It seems that the partner of the said firm Mr. R.K. Gandhi who had given the report had shown his unwillingness to come before the concerned authority and give evidence on the ground that he has practically lost his memories in view of his advanced age. In fact, an attempt was made to summon the said witness but he has shown his unwillingness. This aspect as such is not in dispute. Mr. Rafiq Dada has assailed the proceedings pending before the competent authority under the said Act on the ground that the show cause notice issued under Section 7 was served upon the petitioners on the basis of the report of M/s. K.C. Gandhi and Company and it is not open for respondent No.1 to change the figure mentioned in the said show cause notice based on subsequent Valuer’s report viz. M/s. Khandeparkar Kejriwal. It is submitted by Mr. Rafiq Dada that on the said ground the proceedings are not maintainable unless a fresh notice is issued quantifying the particular amount of damages in the second notice. 3. The learned counsel for respondent No.1, on the other hand, submitted that all these points can be raised before the Competent Authority and this is not a fit case in which the proceedings pending before the authority is required to be intercepted by this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. -3- 4. After hearing the learned counsel appearing in the matter, we are of the opinion that the competent authority before whom the proceedings are pending should also examine the points raised by the petitioners viz. as to whether the proceedings are now maintainable on the basis of show cause notice which is issued on the basis of the report of M/s. K.C. Gandhi and Company by which the damages amounting to Rs. 55,83,509/­ have been arrived at. It is submitted by Mr. Dada that the proceedings on the basis of the aforesaid show cause notice cannot be said to be in accordance with law. Mr. Dada further submits that the show cause notice is based on the basis of the report of Mr. R.K.Gandhi and now since Mr. Gandhi is not willing to appear before the authority for giving evidence and the petitioners cannot cross­ examine him, the authority now cannot go beyond the show cause notice issued to the petitioners and the adjudication is required to be made only on the basis of the notice issued to the petitioners and no other claims whatsoever can be considered unless fresh show cause notice is issued. In our view, this aspect is also required to be examined by the competent authority before whom the proceedings are pending. We are not interfering with this matter at this stage as it would not be proper to intercept the proceedings at this interlocutory stage. It is for the competent authority to examine the aforesaid point. The competent authority while deciding the matter pending before it shall also consider as to whether the claim of the respondent is required to be adjudicated only on the -4- basis of the show cause notice which is issued on the basis of the report of Mr. R.K. Gandhi. It is for the authority to consider whether the proceedings are maintainable on the basis of the show cause notice issued by the Estate Officer on the basis of Mr. R.K. Gandhi’s report or whether respondent No.1 should take proceedings de novo. All these aspects are required to be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law. It will be open to both the sides to rely upon judgments, if any, on this aspect before the competent authority. 5. During the course of argument, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that the Insurance Company is claiming the amount on the basis of show cause notice only. 6. In view of the above, we dispose of this petition with a direction to the competent authority to examine the points raised by the petitioners at the time of hearing of the case pending before it and shall give appropriate decision on this aspect in accordance with law. Subject to what is stated above, the petition is disposed of. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. R.G. KETKAR, J.