1 1 16 of 1966.
From the judgment and order dated the 14/17th March, 1969 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application Nos.
The Judgment of A. N. Ray, C.J., D. G. Palekar, K. K. Mathew and A. Alagiriswami, JJ.,
From the judgment and order dated the 25th August, 1967 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Appeal No.
2 3 in all the W.Ps.
L. Sanghi, A. D. Merchant and B. R. Agarwala, for the appellant in C.As.
From the judgment and order dated the 21st/24th August, 1967 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No.
K. Sen, S. C. Mazumdar and S. K. Basu, for the appellant in C.A. 680/68 .
2076 2080 of 1969 2093 2103 of 1969.
1 2 in C.A. 680/68 .
C. Bhandare, K. S. Kadam, P. C. Bhartari, J. B. Dadachanji, C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for respondents Nos.
P. N. Bhagwati, J. also gave a separate opinion on behalf of himself and V. R. Krishna Iyer, J. ALAGIRISWAMI, J. These appeals and writ petitions relate to the legality of certain proceedings taken under Chapter V A of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act and the Bombay Government Premises Eviction Act, 1955.
From the judgment and order dated the 21/23rd day of August, 1967 of the Bombay High Court in Misc.
The two procedures are number substantially and qualitatively disparate as to attract the vice of discrimination.55 C 56 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
676, 837, 838, 840 and 841 of 1967 and 827 to 836 and 839 of 1969.
249 of 1970.
J. Sorabjee and B. R. Agarwala, for the appellant in A. 2527/69 .
Civil Appeals Nos.
Civil Appeal No.
Civil Appeal No.
Writ Petitions Nos.
C. Bhandare and M. N. Sliroff, for respondent Nos.
was delivered by A. Alagiriswami J., H. R. Khanna, J. gave a separate opinion.
680of 1968.
Petition No.
478of 1966.
Under Art.
7 in C.A. 2527/69 and for respondent number 3 in C.A. 249/70 .
1 and 2 in CA No.
2527/69 .
That chapter companytains sections 105A and 105B. According to the provisions of those sections the Commissioner in relation to premises belonging to or vesting in, or taken on lease by the companyporation and the General Manager also defined as the Commissioner of the Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking in relation to premises of the companyporation which vest in it for the purposes of that undertaking were granted certain powers of eviction in respect of unauthorised occupation of any companyporation premises.
J. Joshi, M. N. Kothari, K. S. Kadam, P. C. Bhartari, B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for respondents Nos.
Chapter V A was introduced in the Bombay Municipal Act, 1888 by Maharashtra Act 14 of 1961.
2076 2080/69 and 2093 2103/69 .
2527 of 1969.
1138 of 1966.
32 of the Constitution of India.
2 and 3 in C.A. Nos.
J. Sorabjee, A. D. Merchant and B. R. Agarwala, for the petitioner in W.P. 333 348/70 .
2076 2080/68, 2093 2103 and for respondent number.
249/70 .
R. Agarwala, K. L. Hathi and P. C. Kapoor, for the appellant in C.A. 249/70 .
C. Setalvad, Y. S. Chitale, K. S. Kadam, P. C. Bhartari, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain for respondent Nos.
3 in A. 680/ 68 and respondent number2 in in C.As.
333 348 of 1970.
S. Desai and M. N. Shroff, for respondent No.
However, an affidavit was filed on behalf of the state giving facts and figures relating to an increasing number of incidents of looting, robbery, dacoity, numbere cutting and murder by marauding gangs of dacoits in certain areas of the state and these details were held to support the claim that the security of the state and public peace were jeopardised and that it became impossible to deal with the offences that were companymitted in different places expeditiously.
