Neha Chandrakant Shroff and Another v. The State of Maharashtra and Others
Background
Since around 1940, two flats in South Mumbai owned by the petitioners' family had been occupied by the Maharashtra Police Department, originally handed over informally (with no written lease or requisition order) to house police officers, with a token monthly payment that stopped altogether after 2007. The Bombay High Court dismissed the owners' writ petition seeking possession, holding that since the nature of the Police Department's occupation (whether requisitioned or merely permissive) was disputed, the matter should be resolved through an ordinary civil suit rather than a writ petition.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court found there was no written order requisitioning the flats and no dispute that the police were still occupying them, occupied by two police families rather than being used as an office, while rent (a mere Rs. 700/month) had gone unpaid for about 18 years. After the State failed to respond meaningfully to the Court's repeated proposals for settlement (paying market rent, buying the property outright, or vacating), the Court held the High Court should have exercised its writ jurisdiction directly rather than relegating the 84-year-old dispute to a fresh civil suit, since doing so would only compound the injustice already suffered by the owners. It set aside the High Court's judgment, allowed the writ petition, and gave the State four months to hand over vacant possession along with all unpaid rent.
Lesson Learnt
The availability of an alternative remedy like a civil suit does not automatically bar High Courts from using their writ jurisdiction, especially where facts are largely undisputed and forcing a citizen through fresh, lengthy litigation against the government would itself be a grave injustice.