1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1896 OF 2009 B.R.Trading & Company & ors. ..Petitioners. v/s. Reserve Bank of India & Anr. ..Respondents. Mr.Harendra Toor a/w. Ms.N.V.Parikh for petitioners. Mr.S.H.Mehta a/w. Kirtida Chandarana i/b. M Humranwala for Respondents. CORAM:- SWATANTER KUMAR,CJ. AND A.M.KHANWILKAR, J DATED :- SEPTEMBER 30, 2009. P.C. 1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 20th August, 2009 passed by the Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay in Miscellaneous Appeal No.101 of 2009. 2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners has mainly argued that no admissible evidence was produced before the Authorities dealing with eviction under section 5(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act to establish that there was any security threat 2 or otherwise justifying eviction of the Petitioners. Secondly, there was element of bias in the proposed action. Even the findings of the Appellate Authority are not correct. 3. We are of the considered view that both the contentions are primarily questioning the finding of fact. There is concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Authority as well as Appellate Body. In paragraph-12 of the impugned Judgment it has been noticed that there is seemingly policy of pick and choose and there was reasonable bias. What has however, been overlooked by the Petitioners is that in the same paragraph, it has been noticed that action against others has also been taken. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents informed us across the bar that the RBI has successfully evicted the other occupants by following due process of Law. Besides, the Respondents are pursuing the matter even with MTNL which is a public undertaking. In so far as the argument regarding no admissible evidence of security threat, it is noticed that that has been recorded by the IB- an independent agency. It is on the basis of IB report steps against all the concerned including the Petitioners have been initiated. Nobody has been left out. The Court cannot overlook the fact that the proceeding before the authority were under the provisions of the Public Premises 3 (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. It was necessitated in public interest. IB has placed its report. Reports given by the IB with photocopy were placed on record. No objection was raised by the Petitioners to take the said reports on record. The strict rule of evidence is not applicable to the action under P.P.Act, being summary proceedings. We do not see that the order suffers from any error of jurisdiction. There is no merit in the Petition. Dismissed. 4. Oral request is made to continue stay of the order. Four weeks’ time is granted to the Petitioners 5. Petition as well as Application are dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE A.M.KHANWILKAR, J