Ashutosh Rajput | Hidayatullah National Law University | 17th May 2020
Olga Tellis & Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors. 1986 AIR 180, 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 51
Facts:
The petitioners were the resident of Bombay who lived in pavement. The respondent took a decision that all pavement dwells in the city of Bombay will be evicted forcibly. The decision of the respondent was challenged in High Court wherein the court decided by the consent of dwellers that after a certain period of time they will leave the pavement. Subsequently, the plaintiff through a writ petition filed under article 32 in the Supreme Court challenged the demolishing of pavement dwelling as it would amount to a deprivation of life to livelihood guaranteed under article 21 of Constitution of India and also infringes right to reside in any part of India as per article 19(1)(e). Whereas the respondent contended that, the plaintiffs in high court have given undertaking that they will not obstruct in the demolition of the huts or pavements after 15 October 1981. And article 19(1)(e) cannot be read to confer, a license to encroach, and trespass upon public property and also contended that there will be no deprivation of life.
Issue:
Whether the petitioners are maintainable?
Held:
The Supreme Court held that the petitioners are clearly maintainable under article 32 of Constitution of India and the action taken against those citizens is ultra vires and contended that section 314 of Bombay Municipal corporation Act is not unreasonable in the circumstances as the pavement is situated in the passage leading to expressway then they should be removed with prior notice to such convenient place which the government fits reasonable and the Low Income Scheme Shelter Program which is proposed to be undertaken with the aid of the World Bank, will be turned as early as possible and the Slum Upgradation Program will ensure basic amenities to such people.
Leave a Reply