Fair hearing must precede eviction, says Mumbai court; comes to govt doctor’s rescue | Mumbai News

Mumbai: A city civil court set aside an eviction order from a Marine Drive flat against a 48-year-old govt doctor, ruling that eviction authorities must record a summary of evidence and provide occupants an opportunity to be heard or adduce evidence before directing them to vacate public premises. The doctor was also ordered to pay Rs 37.22 lakh toward penal rent and outstanding dues.Dr Prashant Patil, earlier posted at RA Podar Medical College and subsequently transferred to Jalgaon, told the court that he occupied the flat along with his wife, two children, and his mother, who is diagnosed with schizophrenia and is undergoing treatment at JJ Hospital. Patil claimed that continued residence in Mumbai was necessary due to family circumstances and medical treatment.The court did not decide whether Patil was an unauthorized occupant. Instead, the court held that interference was necessary because the eviction order was passed without granting a fair and proper opportunity.Noting that the original proceedings violated the principles of natural justice, principal judge Arvind T Wankhede set aside the eviction order and directed that the matter be heard again by the competent authority. The order stated that the matter is remanded “for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with the law by giving fair and proper opportunity to the appellant to file reply, adduce evidence and advance arguments.” Both sides have been directed to appear before the competent authority on Nov 23, 2026.Patil was appointed associate professor through direct recruitment by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission in Aug 2012. He joined service on Aug 22, 2012, at Government Ayurved College, Osmanabad. After promotion, Patil was transferred to RA Podar Medical College and allotted a flat at Government Colony premises.Patil moved the civil court in April 2025 against the principal secretary, medical education and drugs department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and the public works department (PWD).According to Patil, promotion at RA Podar Medical College was denied despite eligibility, and the post allegedly went to another person due to political influence. Patil was transferred to Government Ayurved Mahavidyalaya, Jalgaon, on June 2, 2022. He argued that the transfer was deliberate and that a challenge to the transfer was pending before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. Patil also claimed to have raised grievances before the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commission and written letters to the Commissioner of Medical Education and Research and the Dean of RA Podar Medical College.The state authorities argued that after being transferred out of Mumbai, Patil was required to vacate the govt government quarter within three months under the government resolution dated Jan 7, 2021. The state submitted that Patil failed to vacate the premises even after the permissible period expired and therefore became an unauthorized occupant.The PWD initiated eviction proceedings in Feb 2025. Notices were issued under the Maharashtra Government Premises Eviction Act, and Patil appeared before the competent authority on Feb 27, 2025, and filed a reply. The estate officer later passed an order on March 27, 2025, directing Patil to vacate the premises within one month.Advocates KN Kandekar and Dinesh Bhosale, appearing for Patil, argued that after filing the reply, he could not remain present on March 13 and March 20. The defence argued that Patil appeared again on March 24 and requested an opportunity of hearing, but the authority proceeded to pass the eviction order without considering the request. The lawyers argued that the proceedings were concluded within about a month and that the principles of natural justice were breached.The state argued that Patil had continued in the government accommodation despite transfer to Jalgaon and had no right to remain in the Mumbai flat after the three-month period. The state also argued that Patil had shown willingness to vacate the premises in the reply before the competent authority, and therefore the eviction order was justified.The court rejected the argument that the willingness to vacate could be treated as an unconditional ground for eviction. The judge noted that the willingness was linked to the result of proceedings before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. The court also noted that Patil had claimed that no govt accommodation was occupied at Jalgaon and that house rent allowance was being deducted from his salary.“Here, in this case, it is clear that after the appellant appeared on Feb 27, 2025 and filed a reply, no opportunity was given to him. No proper procedure was followed by the Competent Authority before passing the impugned order. Furthermore, the application filed by the appellant on March 24, 2025, was not considered at all.”