- Case
- NEHA CHANDRAKANT SHROFF v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Supreme Court of India, 08-04-2025)
- Law
- Constitution of India, Right to Information Act, Maharashtra Land Requisition Act, Maharashtra Rent Control Act.
Constitution of India, 1949: The judgment discusses Article 226, noting that the High Court was hesitant to exercise its writ jurisdiction under this Article due to confusion regarding the nature of possession. The Supreme Court stated that 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.
Right to Information Act, 2005: The judgment refers to information supplied to the petitioners under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It was pointed out that a copy of the written Lease Deed was not available even with the respondents. The documentary material on record in the form of information supplied under the provisions of the Act of 2005 indicates that there is no written Lease Deed on the basis of which the Police Authorities have entered into possession.
Maharashtra Land Requisition Act, 1948: The judgment discusses the applicability of the Maharashtra Land Requisition Act, 1948. The respondents argued that the Act applied, but the petitioners submitted that since the flats were orally requisitioned in 1940, the provisions of the Act would not apply retrospectively. The court notes that the Act came into force after possession was taken in 1940, but this does not have material bearing because the nature of possession cannot be stated to be pursuant to any order of requisition.
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999: The judgment mentions the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, stating that the remedy available to the petitioners under this Act ought to have been invoked, especially since that was the statutory remedy available. The High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to have entertained the writ petition.
General Principles of Law: The judgment discusses the principle that the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. The court emphasizes that injustice should be struck down as an anathema to the rule of law. The court also highlights the importance of doing justice, especially when the state has occupied property for a long time without proper documentation or payment.
