GOLDEN LINE STUDIOS PVT. LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS

2026:BHC-AS:30860

                                                                           24 wp 7965 of 2026.doc

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                 WRIT PETITION NO.7965 OF 2026

            Golden Line Studios Pvt. Ltd.                        ...   Petitioner
                 versus
            Union of India and Ors.                              …     Respondents

            Mr. Aseem Naphade with Ms. Tulsi Shah, Ms. Nilanjana Nath i/by Mr. Marmik
            Shah, for Petitioner.
            Mr. Jitendra Mishra with Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

                                CORAM:      N.J.JAMADAR, J.

                                DATE :      27 JULY 2026

            P.C.

            1.      Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

            2.      The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 22 January 2026

            passed by the Estate Officer under Section 5(1) of the Public Premises

            (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.

            3.      Mr. Naphade, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that the

            impugned order cannot be sustained as the last personal hearing was given

            to the Petitioner on 26 December 2018, in pursuance of a notice issued to the

            Petitioner on 1 February 2016, and, thereafter, without providing any further

            opportunity of hearing, the impugned order came to be passed after a period

            of eight years of the personal hearing.

            4.      Mr. Mishra, the learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 submitted

            that, on 26 December 2018, Assistant Chief Manager of the Petitioner had


            SSP                                                                     1/3
                                                              24 wp 7965 of 2026.doc

appeared before the Estate Officer and submitted that the Petitioner intended

to surrender the premises and requested to convey the procedure for transfer

policy which was explained to him during the hearing. The Petitioner has also

expressed its willingness to clear all the rental and other dues.          Multiple

notices were, thereafter, issued to the Petitioner to clear the dues. In view fo

the default, eventually, the Estate Officer passed the impugned order.

Therefore, at this stage, the Petitioner cannot make a grievance regarding the

failure to provide the personal hearing and the alleged delay in passing the

impugned order.

5.    Evidently, the Estate Officer who had provided the personal hearing to

the Petitioner on 26 December 2018 has not passed the impugned order.

There is an inordinate delay in the last personal hearing and the impugned

order. The elementary rules of Audi alterem partem and that the person who

hears should decide, have been observed in breach. Thus, there is a breach

of fundamental principles of judicial process.

6.    When this Court expressed the aforesaid view, the learned Counsel for

Respondent Nos.1 to 3, on instructions, submits that, after passing of the

impugned order, the premises in question has been allotted to another

person. It was further submitted that, after giving fresh notice to the Petitioner

and following the due process, the Estate Officer will pass an appropriate

order in accordance with law.


SSP                                                                  2/3
                                                                                     24 wp 7965 of 2026.doc

                      7.       In view of the aforesaid submissions, the Writ Petition stands disposed

                      with the following directions :

                                                                 ORDER

                               (i)     The impugned order stands quashed and set aside.

                               (ii)    Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are permitted to give a fresh notice to the

                      Petitioner and, after following due process of law, the Estate Officer shall pass

                      a fresh order in accordance with law.

                               (iii)   Writ Petition stands disposed.




                                                                           ( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )




                      SSP                                                                   3/3



Signed by: S.S.Phadke
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 28/07/2026 15:01:45