MUNNAWAR AHMAD Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks quashing of an order dated 22nd September, 1979 passed by the Competent Authority under Section 4 of the M. P. Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974 as amended by the M. P. Lok Parisar (Bedakbali) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 1978 (No. 9 of 1978). The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the amendments introduced by the Amending Act No. 9 of 1978 are unconstitutional as they contravene Article 14 of the Constitution.

(2.) The M. P. Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974 is an Act to provide for the eviction of unauthorised occupants from public premises and for certain incidental matters. Sections 4 and 5 of the Adhiniyam before the amendment by Act No. 9 of 1978 provided for issue of notice to the occupants to show cause against proposed order of eviction and for eviction after giving opportunity to the occupants of being heard and of producing evidence before the competent authority. The notice issued under Section 4 specified the grounds on which the order of eviction was proposed to be made and required all persons concerned to show cause against the proposed order on or before the date specified in the notice. The order of eviction could be passed under Section 5 as it originally stood only after considering the cause shown by the persons concerned and the evidence, if any, produced by them in support of the same and after giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Section 5 further required the competent authority to state the reasons for its conclusions that the grounds for eviction were made out. There was a further safeguard in the shape of an appeal to the District Judge or a judicial officer under Section 9 as it stood before the amendment. Section 9 then did not provide for any restriction as to the power of appellate authority to interfere with the order of the competent authority. The District Judge or any other judicial officer hearing the appeal had full jurisdiction to decide any question of fact or law arising in the appeal and to give relief to the appellant if the order of the competent authority was wrong in fact or in law. The procedure before the competent authority which was consistent with the principles of natural justice and the effective right of appeal conferred by Section 9 ensured fairness and provided safeguards for preventing any arbitrary action on the part of the competent authority.

(3.) By Section 4 of the amending Act, Sections 4 and 5 of the Parent Act were substituted by the following as Sections 4 and 5 :