The Bombay High Court has dismissed a writ petition against an ex-parte order passed by MHADA directing vacation of a commercial premises for not having an Occupation Certificate. The Court termed the continued use of the property "a continuing illegality" and refused any indulgence, imposing Rs. 50 lakh costs on the petitioner for having exploited interim protection to perpetuate unlawful occupation.
The petition had been filed against MHADA's order dated 7 January 2025, which required vacation of a shop premises in Panchratna Co-operative Housing Society, Kurla (East), within 48 hours. The petitioner had thus contended that the said order was passed without notice or hearing and hence without following the principles of natural justice.
However, the Court noted that such property, which was leased for running a branch of Jammu & Kashmir Bank, did not have an Occupation Certificate, much less the fire clearance. The Court observed that by opening a public-facing branch in brazen disregard to statutory requirements, the petitioner and the bank brought about “public inconvenience” from any sudden closure and that could not be pleaded as a justification to perpetuate illegality.
The Bench then observed that no businessman could plead ignorance of mandatory occupation permissions, much more so when one was running a financial institution. The Court also noted the petitioner’s conduct—filing the writ a day after the eviction order and then relying on an interim protection for nine months without vacating the premises—was a clear abuse of the judicial process.
The Court, rejecting the argument on breach of natural justice, held that even assuming a procedural lapse, no relief could be granted when the underlying occupation itself was unlawful and dangerous. It reiterated that a litigant who approaches the court must do so with clean hands and cannot have equitable protection on the continued commission of a statutory violation.
The Court not only vacated the interim relief but directed immediate enforcement of the eviction order. It further ordered an internal inquiry by MHADA and the Jammu & Kashmir Bank to identify the officials responsible for permitting and operating the branch without statutory clearances since February 2024.
The Court, in a rare step, ordered the petitioner to deposit Rs. 50 lakh with the PM Cares Fund within two weeks and warned of further action for non-compliance. It also directed the Municipal Commissioner of Mumbai, MHADA's CEO, and the Chairman of the Jammu & Kashmir Bank to file compliance affidavits within eight weeks. The Court, while dismissing the application to stay the judgment, inter alia, held that natural justice cannot be used as a tool to perpetuate a continued breach of the law. What it means is that courts will not extend the equitable umbrella to those who breach basic statutory requirements behind the veil of Wednesbury principles.
