A Mumbai civil court has set aside the eviction of a government doctor from a Marine Drive flat, ruling that authorities must give occupants a fair opportunity to file a reply, present evidence and make arguments before ordering them to vacate public premises.
Principal judge Arvind T Wankhede remanded the case for fresh consideration by the competent authority after finding that the eviction proceedings against Dr Prashant Patil did not follow the principles of natural justice. The court did not decide whether Patil was an unauthorised occupant.
The court directed the authority to reconsider the matter in accordance with the law and provide Patil a fair and proper opportunity to respond. Both sides have been directed to appear before the competent authority on November 23, 2026.
Patil, a 48-year-old government doctor, had occupied the flat with his wife, two children and his mother, who has schizophrenia and is undergoing treatment at JJ Hospital. He was initially posted at RA Podar Medical College in Mumbai and was later transferred to Government Ayurved Mahavidyalaya in Jalgaon on June 2, 2022.
The state authorities argued that Patil was required to vacate the government quarter within three months of his transfer under a government resolution dated January 7, 2021. They said he continued to occupy the Marine Drive premises after the permissible period and therefore became an unauthorised occupant. The Public Works Department began eviction proceedings in February 2025 under the Maharashtra Government Premises Eviction Act.
Patil appeared before the competent authority on February 27, 2025, and filed a reply. His advocates, K N Kandekar and Dinesh Bhosale, argued that he could not remain present on March 13 and March 20, but appeared again on March 24 and requested an opportunity to be heard. The authority passed an order on March 27 directing him to vacate the premises within one month.
The court held that the proceedings were procedurally deficient because no effective opportunity was given after Patil filed his reply. It also noted that his application dated March 24 had not been considered. The judge rejected the state’s argument that Patil’s stated willingness to vacate amounted to an unconditional basis for eviction, observing that the statement was linked to the outcome of proceedings before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.
Patil had also claimed that he was not occupying government accommodation in Jalgaon and that house rent allowance was being deducted from his salary. He told the court that continued residence in Mumbai was necessary because of his family circumstances and his mother’s medical treatment.
The case also included Patil’s allegations that he had been denied promotion despite eligibility and that his transfer was deliberate. He said he had approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and submitted grievances to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commission, the Commissioner of Medical Education and Research and the dean of RA Podar Medical College. Those allegations were not decided in the eviction proceedings.
The competent authority will now reconsider the eviction matter after hearing Patil and examining the material placed by both sides. The court’s order leaves the question of his eligibility to remain in the flat open for that fresh decision.
