The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, held that a notice issued under Section 314 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 cannot be sustained if it is issued mechanically and without disclosing the specific statutory provisions alleged to have been contravened. The Court examined the scope and application of Section 314 and clarified that it does not operate as an independent provision. Instead, it can be invoked only after the competent authority records satisfaction that there has been a contravention of the enabling provisions contained in Sections 312, 313, or 313A of the Act.
The matter arose from a first appeal challenging an order of the City Civil Court, which had upheld a notice issued by the Municipal Corporation under Section 314. The appellants had filed a civil suit contending that the notice was illegal and void because it failed to disclose any jurisdictional facts or identify the nature of the alleged contravention. The trial court had upheld the notice on the basis that the structure in question was situated on land owned by the Municipal Corporation and used as a dumping ground. The High Court, however, scrutinised the statutory framework governing the relevant provisions and found that the notice did not specify whether the alleged violation related to obstruction of a street, unauthorised projection, deposit causing obstruction, or unauthorised sale in a public place.
The High Court observed that the statutory scheme requires the Municipal Commissioner to record satisfaction regarding the existence of a contravention under the enabling provisions before exercising powers under Section 314. This satisfaction must be evident from the notice itself. In the case before the Court, there was no indication in the notice as to which provision had been violated or how the alleged act amounted to a contravention. The Court noted that the Municipal Corporation had also failed to file a written statement before the trial court explaining the nature of the alleged violation or justifying the issuance of the notice.
The Court held that the absence of recorded satisfaction and the failure to disclose jurisdictional facts rendered the notice legally unsustainable. It found that the notice appeared to have been issued without proper application of mind and in disregard of the statutory requirements governing the exercise of power under Section 314. Since this jurisdictional defect went to the root of the matter, the High Court declined to examine the merits of the remaining contentions raised by the parties.
Accordingly, the Bombay High Court quashed and set aside the impugned notice issued under Section 314 as well as the City Civil Court’s order that had upheld it. The appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed in favour of the appellants. The Court clarified that its decision would not prevent the Municipal Corporation from issuing a fresh notice in accordance with law, provided that the statutory conditions for invoking Section 314 are properly satisfied and clearly reflected in the notice.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.