:1: :1: :1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3265 OF 2007 Rajan Sakharam Patankar ...Petitioner Versus Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation ....Respondents WRIT PETITION NO. 3279 OF 2007 Smt.Vidya Vasant Patankar ...Petitioner Versus Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation ....Respondents ====== Mr.P.S.Dani, Adv. for the petitioners. None for the respondents. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 4TH FEBRUARY,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. These Writ Petitions are filed by two petitioners who have been granted licence by the Respondent Corporation for carrying on business at the Corporation premises. These are stall holders who have been selling Food and Ancillary items from the :2: :2: :2: Stall. 2. Upon the licence period coming to an end and notices issued to them, it appears that they approached the Civil Courts and sought injunction. 3. The premises being covered by the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, (for short ‘Eviction Act’) the petitioners could not succeed in the Civil Court. In such circumstances, proceedings for their eviction were initiated by the competent authority under the Eviction Act. An Eviction order being passed against them, they appealed to the District Judge at Thane, who has been designated as the Appellate Authority under the Eviction Act. Their appeals having been dismissed and the eviction order having been confirmed, these Writ Petitions have been filed. 4. After an ad-interim order passed by this court continuing the protection granted by the lower Appellate Court, these petitions have been placed for admission. :3: :3: :3: 5. During the pendency of these petitions, Mr.Dani appearing for the petitioners invites my attention to a Circular bearing No. 13 of 2007 issued by the Central Office of the respondent corporation on 25.5.2007. According to Mr.Dani, this Circular deals with the pending proceedings with regard to the arrears of licence fees and interest thereo n. 6. According to Mr.Dani, this Circular would cover the case of the petitioners and if time is granted to them to approach the respondent Corporation for renewal of their licences, they would not press this petition. It is the request of Mr.Dani, that the petitioners would apply for benefit in terms of this Circular and seek renewal of their licence and to enable them to do so, some time be granted, so also and assuming without admitting that the petitioner’s cannot be considered favourably, yet, six months time may be granted from today to comply with the order of the Competent Authority, subject however, to the request recorded above. In other words, Mr.Dani’s submission is that, if the respondents accept the :4: :4: :4: request, then, there would be no eviction. However, if that request is rejected, some time be granted to avail of the constitutional remedy as the petitioners Corporation is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 7. The petitioners have specifically stated before me that apart from them, none others are in possession of the Stalls/subject premises. They would not alienate, encumber or part with possession of these Stalls in favour of any third party. 8. None appear for the respondents. The matter was adjourned from time to time, to enable Mr.Dani to produce a copy of the Circular and to apply for renewal in terms thereof, if permissible. Mr.Dani states that each of these petitioners have applied for renewal of their licences, but no decision has been communicated to them. 9. Since the direction as proposed by me, will not cause any prejudice to the Respondent Corporation, I do not deem it fit to adjourn this matter. More so, :5: :5: :5: when I am not inclined to interfere with the orders under challenge. They suffer from no legal infirmity, leave alone, any error apparent or perversity. The premises belong to the Corporation, the license granted in favour of the petitioners were for a fixed term which had expired. In such circumstances, resorting to the provisions of the Eviction Act, was permissible. Therefore, the orders under challenge do not require any interference. Petitions are accordingly dismissed. No costs. 10. However, in the light of the statements made and Undertakings, which are given to this court, it is directed that for a period of six months from today, the petitioners will not be evicted from the premises. This order is passed in the light of the statement of Mr.Dani that each of the petitioners have applied for renewal of their licences in terms of the prevalent policies. 11. It is clarified that this court has not directed the Corporation to either renew the licence. It would be for the Corporation to issue :6: :6: :6: such order and directions as are permissible in law and the prevalent policies. All that is directed, is that the Corporation must consider these representations/applications for renewal and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of 8 weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order. In case the licences are renewed, then all consequences shall follow. In case the request is refused, subject to the petitioners rights and contentions and the available constitutional remedy, it is directed that the petitioners shall not be evicted from the premises for a period of 6 months from today. 12. Subject to the above, the petitions are dismissed. No costs. Mr.Dani has made the statements as recorded above, on instructions from the petitioners, who are personally present in court. ****