WELFARE ASSOCN. A.R.P., MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. ETC. ETC. v. RANJIT P. GOHIL AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

p. 178 Copy page pinpoint

A vitiated on account of virtual acquisitioning without payment of compensation resulting from recurring and non-intermittent cycles of requisitioning. It was struck down. Consequent upon constitutional interpretation and adjudication by this Court thousands, if not lakhs of persons and substantial activity of government, semi-government bodies and PSU's ran the risk of being rendered roofless and out of gear. They all needed to be protected by State intervention and constituted a class by themselves. All such premises whose occupants were under the threat of eviction also constituted property capable of identification by a well defined classification. The Legislature chose to step in and enact a legislation, which would protect the threatened evictees from likely eviction. The persons and premises - both constitute a well defined class by themselves and the classification cannot be said to be arbitrary; it is capable of being distinguished from others not included in that class. Such classification has an apparent and clear nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The impugned legislation does not, therefore, suffer from either arbitrariness or invidious discrimination. The challenge that the impugned Amendment Act falls foul of Article 14 of the Constitution must therefore fail. The contention that the impugned Amending Act cannot withstand the test of Article 14 of the Constitution was raised in the High Court but was not dealt with for the reason that even otherwise, in the opinion of the High E Court, the impugned legislation was unconstitutional. However, in view of the submissions made, we have dealt with the issue and disposed of the same.

Conclusion '

Thus the challenge to the constitutional validity of the impugned F Amending Act fails on all the counts, The decision of the High Court wherein view to the contrary has been taken is held unsustainable and liable to be reversed, However, this is subject to a clarification,

We have in the earlier part of this judgment extracted and reproduced para 20 of the Constitution Bench decision in Grahak Sanstha Manch 's case containing some categorical and definite directions given by the Supreme Court to the occupants of requisitioned premises and the State Government, which protected the occupants in Bombay and other large cities in Maharashtra until 30.11.1994, and with effect from that date directed that 'all occupants of premises the continued requisition of which has been quashed' shall be bound to vacate and hand over vacant possession to the State Government so that the State Government may on or before 3 L12.1994 derequisition such

i WELFARE ASSOCN. A.R.P., MAHARASHTRA v. RANJIT P. GOHIL [LAHOTI, J.) 179 premises and hand back vacant possession thereof to the landlords. The reversal of the impugned judgment of the High Court and upholding tl\e validity of the impugned legislation shall not have the effect of undoing or overruling the abovesaid mandate of the Supreme Court contained in the decision of Grahak Sanstha Manch 's case.

Accordingly. all the appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside subject to the clarification made hereinabove.

It was stated at the Bar, during the course of hearing that the impugned judgment decided only the question of vires of the impugned Amending Act. Some of the writ petitions filed in the High Court raised the question of vires of the impugned Act as the sole issue for decision which writ petitions shall stand dismissed in view of this judgment. Some of the writ petitions filed in the High Court raised other issues as well which in the event of the impugned judgment being set aside shall have to be remanded to the High Court for hearing on issues other than the issue as to vires of the impugned Amendment Act. All the appeals shall therefore now be listed for appropriate consequential directions before the Court.

N.J. Appeals allowed.