2019 INSC 0163
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1727­1732   OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.24971­24976 of 2018)
Municipal Corporation of
Greater Mumbai & Ors.     ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Rafiqunnisa M. Khalifa(Deceased)
Through His Legal Heir 
Mr. Mohd.Muqueen Qureshi & Anr.       ….Respondent(s)
                 
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These   appeals   are   directed   against   the   final
judgment   and   order   dated   12.06.2018   of   the   High
Court   of   Judicature   at   Bombay   in   Writ   Petition(c)
1

Nos.2639,   2184,   2642,   2641,   2644   and   2746   of
2016   whereby   the   High   Court   allowed   the   writ
petitions filed by the respondents herein.
3. A   f ew   facts   need   mention   hereinbelow   to
appreciate   the   short   controversy   involved   in   these
appeals.
4.   Respondent   No.1   in   all   the   appeals   (total   6)
were the writ petitioners and the appellants (1 to 6)
herein were the respondents in the six writ petitions
out of which these appeals arise.
5. The   six   respondents   individually   filed   six
separate   writ   petitions   against   the   Municipal
Corporation   of   Greater   Mumbai   (appellant   No.1
herein)   and   their   officials   including   the   Collector
(Respondent Nos.2 to 6) and sought common reliefs
in   their   individual   writ   petitions   against   the
appellants   on   identical,   factual   and   legal
pleadings/grounds.
2

6. According   to   six   writ   petitioners   (respondent
No.   1   in   all   the   appeals),   one   was   running   his
restaurant   in   a   stall   under   the   name   “Yadgar
Restaurant” at Bandra Station Road. The other writ
petitioner   was   running   a   "Pan   Shop"   in   a   stall   in
front of Yadgar Restaurant. The third writ petitioner
was   running   a   food   stall   under   the   name   "Lucky
Kabab   Corner"   at   Bandra   Station   Road.   The   fourth
writ   petitioner   was   running   a   food   stall   under   the
name   "Danish   Kabab   Corner"   at   Bandra   Station
Road.   The   fifth   writ   petitioner   was   running   a   food
stall under the name "Gulsik­Kabab and sweetmeat
shop"   at   Bandra   Station   Road   and   sixth   writ
petitioner was running a food stall under the name
"A­1 Seak Kabab" at Bandra Station Road.
7.    All   the   six   writ   petitioners   sought   the   relief   of
mandamus   on   the   identical   allegations   against   the
appellants   inter   alia   contending   that   the   officials   of
3

the   Municipal   Corporation   illegally   removed   their
stalls/structures   on   26.05.2016   without   any   prior
notice   to   any   of   them.   The   writ   petitioners   alleged
that   the   action   on   the   part   of   the   Municipal
Corporation   and   their   officials   (appellants   herein)
while   undertaking   the   removal   of     the   writ
petitioners'   food/pan   stalls   situated   at   Bandra
Station   Road   was   wholly   arbitrary,   illegal   and
against   the   relevant   provisions   of   the   Mumbai
Municipal   Corporation   Act,   1888   (hereinafter
referred to as "The Act"). 
8. It   was   alleged   that   each   writ   petitioner   was
holding   the   health   license   issued   by   the   Municipal
Corporation   (appellant   No.1   herein)   for   running
their   respective   stalls   on   the   site   in   question   and,
therefore, the appellant No.1­Municipal Corporation
was   not   justified   and   nor   had   any   right   under   the
4

Act   to   initiate   any   action   for   the   removal   of   their
stalls much less without any prior notice.  
9. It   was   alleged   that   the   action   to   remove   the
structures/stalls   was   not   in   conformity   with   any
provision of the Act inasmuch as it also violated the
principle of natural justice.  It was equally in breach
of Article 14 of the Constitution. 
10. The   writ   petitioners,   on   the   aforementioned
allegations,   claimed   the   reliefs   that   the   appellant
No.1­Municipal   Corporation   be   directed   to   put   the
writ petitioners in possession of the site in question
or in the alternative to provide them with any other
suitable site in the city where they could start their
business afresh and further direct the appellants to
pay   to   each   writ   petitioner   a   reasonable
compensation for the loss of their business and the
inconvenience   caused   to   them   on   account   of
5

impugned   removal   done   by     appellant   No.1­
Municipal Corporation on 26.05.2018.
11. The   appellants   opposed   the   writ   petitions   by
filing   reply   in   some   of   the   writ   petitions.   The
appellants   inter   alia   contended   that   they   were
compelled   to   take   the   action   under   Section   314   of
the   Act   because   these   stalls/structures   were   found
erected   on   the   public   sewer.   It   was   contended   that
since   these   stalls/structures   were   causing
hindrance   in   cleaning   the   public   sewer   lines   and
were   found   to   have   been   erected   without   any
sanctioned   plan,   they   had   to   be   removed   in   public
interest.   It   was   also   contended   that   these
stalls/structures   were   also   causing   traffic
congestion   on   Bandra   Station   Road.   It   was   lastly
contended   that  before   taking   the   action,   the   health
licenses   granted   to   the   writ   petitioners   were
6

cancelled   and   a   circular   was   issued   on   05.10.2015
for removal of these unauthorized stalls/structures.
12. By   impugned   order,   the   High   Court   allowed
the   writ   petitions.   It   was   held   that   the   appellant
(Municipal   Corporation)   was   not   able   to   prove   that
the   case   in   question   falls   under   Section   314   of   the
Act.   The   High   Court,   therefore,   struck   down   the
action   taken   by   the   Municipal   Corporation   and
issued   9   directions   in   the   nature   of   mandamus
against   the   appellants.   These   9   directions   read   as
under: 
(i) We   direct   the   Mumbai   Municipal
Corporation   to   allot   to   the   Petitioners
stalls/shops   of   the   same   size   which
were   demolished   on   26 th
  May,   2016   in
the same locality or in nearby locality;
(ii) The   locality   shall   be   such   that   the
petitioners are in a position to carry on
the   same   business   which   they   were
carrying   on   in   the   demolished
structures;
(iii) The   Allotment   shall   be   made   to   the
Petitioners   as   expeditiously   as   possible
7

and in any event, within a period of two
months   from   the   date   on   which   this
judgment and order is uploaded;
(iv) The Petitioners will be liable to pay the
fee/charges, if any, which were payable
in respect of the demolished structures;
(v) On   the   failure   of   the   Municipal
Corporation   to   erect/allot   the
stalls/shops   as   directed   above   within
the period of two months from the date
on   which   this   judgment   and   order   is
uploaded,   it   will   be   open   to   the
Petitioners   to   re­construct   their
structures/stalls   at   the   places   where
the same were situated;
(vi) However,   the   re­construction   shall   be
made   by   using   the   same   construction
material   and   that   also   with   advance
notice   at   least   of   48   hours   to   the
Designated   Officer   of   the   concerned
Ward   who   or   his   nominee   shall   be
entitled   to   remain   present   at   the   time
of re­construction;
(vii) We   make   it   clear   that   in   respect   of   re­
constructed   shops,   the   Petitioners   will
not   be   entitled   to   claim   any   equity.     If
the   original   stalls   which   were
demolished   were   illegal,   it   will   be
always   open   for   the   Municipal
Corporation   to   initiate   an   action   of
demolition   of   the   re­constructed   stalls
in accordance with law;
8

(viii) As far as the prayer for compensation is
concerned,   it   will   be   always   open   for
the   Petitioners   to   make   appropriate
representation   to   the   Municipal
Corporation   along   with   all   the
particulars   and   documents.     If   such
representations   are   made,   the
Municipal   Corporation   shall   decide   the
same   within   a   period   of   three   months
from   the   date   of   filing   of   the
representations;
(ix) The   Petitions   are   made   absolute   in   the
above terms with no order as to costs.”
13. The   Municipal   Corporation   felt   aggrieved   by
the   impugned   order   and   has   filed   the   present
appeals by way of special leave in this Court.   
14. So,   the   short   question,   which   arises   for
consideration in these appeals, is whether the High
Court was justified in allowing the respondents’ writ
petitions and issuing 9 directions quoted above.
15.  Heard Mr. Shyam Divan and Mr. Atul Chitale,
learned   senior   counsel   for   the   appellants   and   Mr.
9

Sunil   Fernandes   and   Ms.   Deepa   M.   Kulkarni,
learned counsel for the respondents.
16. Having   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the
parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we
are   inclined   to   allow   the   appeals,   set   aside   the
impugned order and dismiss the writ petitions.
17. Sections   312   and   314   of   the   Act,   which   are
relevant   for   disposal   of   these   appeals,   read   as
under:
“ 312.     Prohibition   of   structures   or   fixtures
which cause obstruction in streets.
(1) No   person   shall,   except   with   the
permission   of   the   Commissioner   under
section   310 or  317,   erect or  set  up  any  wall,
fence,   rail,   post,   step,   booth   or   other
structure   or   fixture   in   or   upon   any   street   or
upon or over any open channel, drain, well or
tank   in   any   street   so   as   to   form   an
obstruction   to,   or   an   encroachment   upon,   or
a   projection   over,   or   to   occupy,   any   portion
of such street, channel, drain, well or tank.
(2) Nothing   in   this   section   shall   be
deemed   to   apply   to   any   erection   or   thing   to
which clause(c) of section 322 applies.
10

“ 314.     Power   to   remove   without   notice
anything   erected,   deposited   or   hawked   in
contravention of Section 312, 313 or 313A.
The   Commissioner   may,   without   notice,
cause to be removed­
(a) any   wall,   fence,   rail,   post,   step,   booth
or   other   structure   or   fixture   which   shall   be
erected   or   set   up   in   or   upon   any   street,   or
upon or over any open channel, drain, well or
tank   contrary   to   the   provisions   of   sub­
section(1)   of   section   312,   after   the   same
comes   into   force   in   the   city   or   in   the
suburbs,   after   the   date   of   the   coming   into
force   of   the   Bombay   Municipal   (Extension   of
Limits) Act, 1950 or in the extended suburbs
after the date of the coming into force of the
Bombay   Municipal   Further   Extension   of
Limits   and   Schedule   BBA   (Amendment)   Act,
1956;
(b) any   stall,   chair,   bench,   box,   ladder,   bale,
board   or   shelf,   or   any   other   thing   whatever
placed,   deposited,   projected,   attached,   or
suspended   in,   upon   from   or   to   any   place   in
contravention   of   sub­section(1)   of   section
313;
(c) any  article   whatsoever hawked   or exposed
for   sale   in   any   public   place   or   in   any   public
street   in   contravention   of   the   provisions   of
Section   313A   and   any   vehicle,   package,   box,
board, shelf or any other thing in or on which
such article is placed or kept for the purpose
of sale.
11

(d) any   person,   unauthorisedly   occupying   or
wrongfully   in   possession   of   any   public   land
from   such   land   together   with   all   the   things
and   material   unauthorisedly   placed,
projected   or   deposited   on   such   land   by   such
person
Provided   that,   the   Commissioner   shall,
while   executing   such   removal,   allow   such
person   to   take   away   his   personal   belongings
and   household   articles,   such   as   cooking
vessels, bed and beddings of the family, etc.”
18. Section 312 of the Act prohibits erecting of any
structure   or   fixture   of   any   nature   such   as   ­   wall,
fence, rail, post, step, booth upon any street or over
any  open  channel,  drain, well or  tank in  any  street
which   causes   obstruction   or   encroachment   or
projection   or   to   occupy   portion   of   such   street,
channel,   drain,   well   or   tank   as   the   case   may   be.
Only   those   structures/fixtures   are   saved   from
Section   312   of   the   Act   which   are   erected   with   the
permission   of   the   Commissioner   granted   under
Sections   310   and   317   of   the   Act.   In   other   words,
12

Section   312   has   no   application   to   those
structures/fixtures which are erected by the person
with   the   permission   of   the   Commissioner   under
Sections 310 and 317 of the Act.   
19. Section 314(1)  with which we are concerned in
this   case   confers   power   on   the   Commissioner   to
remove   any   wall,   fence,   rail,   post,   step,   booth   or
other structure or fixture which is found erected or
set   up   on   any   street,   open   channel,   drain,   well   or
tank contrary to the provisions of sub­Section (1) of
Section   312   of   the   Act   after   coming   into   force   the
provisions   of   Bombay   Municipal   (Extension   of
limits)   Act,   1950   or   in   the   extended   suburbs   after
coming   into   force   Further   Extension   of   Limits   and
Schedule BBA (Amendment) Act, 1956. 
20. In   other  words,   in   order   to   exercise   the   power
under   Section   314   (1)   of   the   Act,   two   conditions
must   be   present.     First,   the   disputed   wall,   fence,
13

rail, post, step, booth or any other type of structure
or   fixture,   as   the   case  may   be,   is   erected   or   set   up
on   any   public   street   or   open   channel   or   drain   or
well   or   tank;   and   Second,   any   such   structure   or
fixture,   as   the   case   may   be,   is   erected   or   set   up   in
the   city   or   suburbs   contrary   to   the   provisions   of
Section 312(1) of the Act after coming into force the
two Acts specified in sub­section (1). 
21.  Coming   now   to   the   facts   of   the   case,   it   is
apposite   to   mention   here   that   the   appellants   filed
certain additional documents in these appeals such
as map and the photographs of the site in question
in support of their case. These documents were not
filed   before   the   High   Court   as   is   clear   from   the
perusal   of   the   impugned   order.   These   documents
were   allowed   to   be   taken   on   record   being   relevant
and material for deciding the issue involved in these
appeals. The respondents, however, did not dispute
14

the   veracity   of   these   documents   and,   therefore,
these documents remained indisputable.  
22. Perusal   of   the   counter   affidavit,   map   and   the
photographs   of   the   site   in   question   clearly   show
that,   first,   the   stalls/structures   of   the   respondents
were   found   erected   on   the   sewer   line/chamber;
Second, these structures/stalls were not erected by
the   respondents   with   the   permission   of   the
Commissioner   as  required  under   Section   312   (1)  of
the   Act;   Third,   no   sanctioned   map   was   filed   by   the
respondents to prove that the structures were legal;
and   fourth,   the   stalls/structures   were   causing
obstruction   to   public   at   large   and   were   causing
encroachment   on   the   street   (Bandra   Station   Road),
which is very narrow.
23. In   the  light  of  the   aforementioned   four   factors
being present, we are of the considered opinion that
the   appellant   (Commissioner)   was   justified   in
15

invoking   the   powers   under   Section   314   of   the   Act
against  the  respondents   on  26.05.2018 for  removal
of   their   stalls/structures.     Since   the   action   to
remove   the   stalls/structures   was   taken   under
Section 314 of the Act, it was not necessary to give
any   prior   notice   to   the   respondents   though   a
circular   was   issued   on   05.10.2015   requesting   the
respondents   to   remove   their   stalls/structures   from
the site in question.
24.   We are, therefore, unable to find any illegality
or   arbitrariness   or   unreasonableness   in   the   action
taken   by   the   Commissioner   under   Section   314   of
the   Act,   which   resulted   in   removal   of   the
respondents’ stalls/structures.
25.   Learned   counsel   for   the   respondents,
however,   argued   that   since   the   respondents   were
granted   health   licenses   under   the   Act   for   selling
16

their   foodstuff   in   these   stalls/structures,   their
removal from the site in question was illegal.
26. We   find   no   merit   in   this   submission.   In   our
opinion,   grant   of   health   license   has   nothing   to   do
with   erection   of   stall/structure   and   its   removal.   In
order to exercise the power under Section 314 of the
Act,   the   conditions   specified   therein   need   to   be
satisfied. Section 314 nowhere says that if a person
is   carrying   on   any   activity   in   such   stall/structure
on   the   strength   of   health   license   on   the   street,   or
open   channel,   drain,   well   or   tank,   no   action   to
remove   such   stall/structure   can   be   taken   against
such   person.   The   action   under   Section   314   can   be
attacked   successfully   only   by   showing   that   the
person   had   erected   his   stall/structure   with   the
permission   of   the   Commissioner   granted   under
Section 312(1) of the Act. Such is, however, not the
case here.
17

27. In our  opinion, the  High  Court was, therefore,
not   justified   in   striking   down   the   action   of   the
appellant   (Commissioner)   taken   under   Section   314
of   the   Act   for   removal   of   their   stalls/structures   on
26.05.2018.     The   High   Court   was   also   not   justified
in   issuing   a   mandamus   directing   the   appellant­
Municipal   Corporation   to   provide   to   each
respondent   some   suitable   land   either   in   the   same
area or in adjacent area.
28. It   is   a   settled   principle   of   law   that   a   writ   of
mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution is
issued,   when   there   is   a   right   and   correspondingly
there is a legal duty to perform. In this case, neither
there   was   any   right   (contractual   or   legal)   in   writ
petitioners’ favour and nor there is any provision in
the   Act   which   casts   an   obligation   to   provide   any
alternate land to the respondents. 
18

29. We   also   do   not   find   any   scheme/policy   made
in this behalf by the appellants or  the State, which
could   be   enforced   by   the   respondents.   Moreover,
once   this   Court   holds   that   the   action   taken   under
Section   314   of   the   Act   against   the   respondents   is
legal   and   proper,   there   is   no   occasion   to   issue   any
mandamus much less the mandamus of the nature
issued by the High Court.
30. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals
succeed and are accordingly allowed. The impugned
order   is   set   aside.   As   a   consequence,   the   writ
petitions   out   of   which   these   appeals   arise   are
dismissed.
             ………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
                         
         
....……..................................J.
        [DINESH MAHESHWARI]
New Delhi;
February 18, 2019.
19