1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITIONS NOS.55 OF 2011, 57 OF 2011 & 95 OF 2011 WRIT PETITION NO.55 OF 2011 MR. PREMANAND S. KORGAONKAR …. Petitioner V/S THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF MORMUGAO …. Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.57 OF 2011 MR. MAKATHOUSE RAZAK …. Petitioner V/S THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF MORMUGAO …. Respondent AND WRIT PETITION NO.95 OF 2011 RAMPRASAD MALLAH THROUGH POA MR. RAMCHANDRA MALLAH …. Petitioner V/S THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF MORMUGAO …. Respondent Mr. A.D. Bhobe, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. Y.V. Nadkarni, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & F.M. REIS, JJ. DATE : 22nd MARCH, 2011 P.C.: An affidavit is filed by the Senior Assistant Secretary (Law) of the respondent, Port Trust in which it is stated that the respondent is a public body and is duty bound to follow the due 2 process of law. Therefore, the proceedings will be initiated against the petitioner under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, for eviction from the subject premises/shop. 2. In the light of the statement made in this affidavit which is accepted as an undertaking to this Court, the petitioner's apprehension that he will be dispossessed from the premises/shop without due process of law is not well founded. 3. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner then made a grievance that if the petitioner cannot be evicted in the manner threatened, then, the Electric supply so also the water supply to the premises, be restored. The same have been disconnected unauthorizedly and illegally by the Port Trust. 4. Mr. Nadkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the Port Trust submits that the occupation of the premises by the petitioner is unauthorized and illegal. Therefore, he is a trespasser in respect of the same. No facilities can be given to a trespasser and, therefore, this Court should not consider his request for restoration of the said electric and water supply. 3 5. We are rather surprised at such a stand of the Port Trust when it proclaims in the petition that it will abide by due process of law, surely, until and unless the proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 come to an end, the Port Trust cannot decide and determine the status of the petitioner. That is for the Authorities under that Act to decide. The Port Trust cannot interfere with the determination of the issues raised and, particularly, with regard to the alleged unauthorised occupation of the petitioner. 6. In such circumstances, withholding of essential supplies like electricity and water or not facilitating grant of the same merely because proceedings for eviction are to be initiated is not abiding by the due process of law, to say the least. 7. In such circumstances, if the petitioner makes a request for restoration of his electricity and water supply, the appropriate Authorities will consider that request, without being influenced by the stand of the Port Trust and, any statements made before this Court. If the Port Trust is required to facilitate the grant and restoration of such basic amenities, we have no doubt in our mind that the Port Trust will take an informed decision, bearing in mind 4 the observations of this Court and being fully aware of the legal position that mere grant of such amenities will not create any rights in favour of the petitioner. The grant will be always without prejudice to the legal rights of the parties. Since the petitioner is in possession and was carrying on some business from the shop that a humanitarian approach is warranted. Petitions disposed off in these terms. No costs. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. F.M. REIS, J. NH/-