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 2026:BHC-AS:30860 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