Summary eviction powers under town planning law require notice, hearing, reasons, and remain subject to writ review.

A statutory summary eviction power under town planning law is not unconstitutional merely because the scheme provides no appeal or revision. Its validity depends on the cumulative effect of the statutory framework, the nature of the authority exercising it, and the safeguards built into the process. The power is treated as quasi-judicial, so notice, hearing, and a speaking order based only on relevant material are required. The action also remains open to writ review for mala fides, perversity, or other legal infirmities. On that basis, the absence of corrective machinery did not invalidate the provision, and the challenge to the eviction notices failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the absence of an appellate or revisional corrective machinery under the town planning eviction procedure rendered section 54 of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954 and Rule 27 of the Bombay Town Planning Rules, 1955 unconstitutional as arbitrary and violative of Article 14, and whether the power of summary eviction had to be exercised in conformity with natural justice.

Analysis: The power of summary eviction arose at the stage of execution of a final town planning scheme and was conferred on the local authority, a responsible body required to act objectively by reference to the final scheme and the entitlement of the occupants. The absence of an appellate or revisional remedy was held not by itself to invalidate the provision. Whether such absence made the power arbitrary had to be judged cumulatively with the nature of the authority, the character of the power, and the safeguards implicit in its exercise. The power was held to be quasi-judicial, requiring notice, hearing, and a speaking order based only on germane material, with the action remaining subject to writ review for mala fides, perversity, and other legal infirmities.

Conclusion: The absence of corrective machinery did not make section 54 or Rule 27 invalid, and the challenge to the notices failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory power is not unconstitutional merely because no appeal or revision is provided; validity depends on the cumulative effect of the scheme, the nature of the authority, and the safeguards inherent in quasi-judicial exercise, including observance of natural justice, reasons, and judicial review.

---