Constitutional Powers Can’t Be Fettered By Availability Of Alternative Remedy: Supreme Court Asks Police Department To Hand Over Flats Occupied For The Past 84 Years
The appeal before the Apex Court challenged the judgment, dismissing the Petition of the appellants seeking possession of the flats occupied since 1940.
While observing that the constitutional powers vested in the High Court or the Supreme Court cannot be fettered by any alternative remedy available to the party concerned, the Supreme Court has asked the Maharashtra Police Department to vacate and hand over two flats occupied since 1940.
The appeal before the Apex Court arose from the impugned judgment of the Bombay High Court by which the Writ Petition filed by the appellants against the State of Maharashtra and Others came to be rejected.
The Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan said, “This is one of those cases wherein the High Court should have readily exercised its writ jurisdiction. The constitutional powers vested in the High Court or the Supreme Court cannot be fettered by any alternative remedy available to the party concerned. Injustice, whenever and wherever it takes place, should be struck down as an anathema to the rule of law and the provisions of the Constitution.”
Factual Background
The case, as set up by the Petitioners, was that in or about the year 1940, two flats were permitted to be temporarily occupied by the Police Department at their request to meet the requirement of housing police officers to enable maintenance of the law and order situation. The petitioners pleaded that there was no written contract executed between their predecessor and the Police Department. The Police Department paid certain amounts to the predecessor on a monthly basis.
In the year 1997, the predecessor of the petitioners raised a grievance about non-payment of the monthly amount. According to the petitioners, since they needed the aforesaid premises, a request was made to the respondents to return possession of the same. Since the same was not done, the writ petition came to be filed by the petitioners. The High Court found that there was no material on record to substantiate the petitioners’ claim that the said two flats were requisitioned based on which the Police Authorities entered into possession. Dismissing the Petition, the High Court granted liberty to the petitioners to avail appropriate remedy as available in law to seek appropriate reliefs.
Reasoning
The Bench took note of the submission of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police (Headquarter), Mumbai, that the flats in question were not being utilised as an Office of the Police Department, but two families were residing in those flats. The monthly rent of each flat, admeasuring 600 square feet, situated in South Bombay is Rs.700.
The Bench found that three proposals were given by the Petitioner to the Respondents, but there was no response from the Respondents. The Bench noticed that the appellants had been frantically trying to get back their property (two flats) in question, which the State occupied way back in the year 1940 without any written order requisitioning the two flats for temporary use by the Police authorities or any lease deed in writing. As per the Bench, the High Court got confused on the aspect of the nature of possession and found the same to be permissive.
Considering the fact that the matter dates back to 1940, when the country was ruled by the Britishers and Bombay was altogether different, the Bench explained that the Department perhaps might have persuaded the appellants or their predecessors in title to part with the possession of the two flats for the Police Department. “However, it has been now 84 years that the Police Department has been in occupation and use of the two flats. Look at the conduct of the Department. We are informed that past eighteen years even rent has not been paid”, it added.
Thus, the Bench set aside the impugned judgment passed by the High Court and allowed the original writ petition preferred by the appellants before the High Court. “We grant four months’ time to the respondents from today to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of both the flats in question to the appellants along with the arrears of rent accrued till the date of handing over of the possession of the two flats. We are informed that the Department has not been paying rent from 2008 onwards. The rent shall be calculated accordingly and be paid to the appellants”, it held.
Cause Title: Neha Chandrakant Shroff & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 484)
