wp4602-03.doc 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4602 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4603 OF 2011 Bandra Consumers Coop. Society Ltd. .. Petitioner Versus Commissioner of Police, Mumbai .. Respondent Mr.P.R.Kadam for petitioners Mr.R.M.Patne, AGP for respondent CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 28th JUNE 2011. P.C.: 1] The petitioner is a cooperative society. It is in fact a consumer society. It has been catering to the needs of people at large and particularly, by opening a fair price shop soas to make available essential commodities at reasonable price. The petitioners were approached in the year 1969 and 1977 by the police personnel with a request to set up a fair price shop in the premises that belonged to Government. The premises are in the police housing colony and the fair price shop is running for more than 40 years. The premises are two small rooms in the Government premises at Bandra and Mahim. These being Government premises and the leave and licence agreement wp4602-03.doc 2 having not been renewed, terming the petitioner's occupation as unauthorised and illegal eviction notices were served, proceedings initiated, orders of eviction are passed and the same are confirmed in appeal. 2] In this petition, it is urged that before the eviction proceedings were initiated, no notice under section 164 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960 was issued. The second contention as was raised before the appellate authority is that mere expiry of the leave and licence agreement by efflux of time does not mean that petitioner's occupation is deemed to be unauthorised. The Government premises are not required for any Government or public purpose but there is some pressure from the interested persons in the residential area and particularly in the department to have the petitioner evicted. For all these reasons, the orders are bad in law. 3] As far as first contention is concerned, I am of the opinion that section 164 of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act cannot be held to be applicable. That is contemplating a suit against a society or any of its officers. On the plain reading thereof, the section is inapplicable in the present facts and circumstances. 4] The second contention that the continued occupation wp4602-03.doc 3 of the premises by the petitioners cannot be termed as unautorised merely on the expiry of leave and licence agreement is also not well founded because the leave and licence agreement had expired in 1999. Thereafter, there has been no renewal thereof. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the notice could not have been issued or the pre- requisite thereof is not satisfied. No fault can be found in the order of eviction passed as it is on the notice which clearly states that leave and licence agreement having expired and not renewed, the occupation of the Government premises for continuous period of ten years and thereafter is unauthorised. In these circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the orders under challenge. The orders are based on materials placed and there is no error apparent on the face of record or any perversity demonstrated permitting interference in writ jurisdiction. 5] The petition is, therefore, dismissed as even the allegations of malafides are not substantiated. However, the petitioners having been carrying on the fair price shop from where essential commodities are being supplied to people in the vicinity, interest of justice would be served if six month's time is granted to the petitioners to vacate the premises but on the undertaking that petitioners will not induct any third party or part with possession or transfer the same in any manner. wp4602-03.doc 4 6] The petitioner will continue to pay monthly charges in terms of leave and licence agreement. Further, bearing in mind that the petitioner is consumer cooperative society and functional in Bandra and Mahim for quite some time, its registration dating back to the year 1965 so also considering the objects and purpose for which the society has been incorporated and registered, interest of justice would be sub- served by further directing the State of Maharashtra to consider the application / representation of the petitioner for grant of alternate premises in the vicinity and if the representation is made the decision thereon shall be taken and communicated within the aforesaid period to the petitioner. The decision should be taken uninfluenced by the orders passed against the society and confirmed by this Court. Further, the decisions should be taken by the Department other than Home Department. The appropriate authority should sympathetically consider the representation and pass appropriate orders. Petitions disposed of no costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)