Dismissed

Aniruddh C. Bhatt v. the Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and Anr.

Bombay HC10 Aug 2005WP/2071/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order assessing rateable value. Court dismissed the writ petition summarily, holding that since an alternative statutory appeal under an Act was adequate and efficacious, the writ was not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed summarily on grounds that an adequate and efficacious statutory appeal remains available.

Aniruddh C. Bhatt Vs the Municipal Corporation of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.2071 OF 2005

¶4

Anirudd C.Bhatt

¶5

.. Petitioner

¶6

versus

¶7

The Municipal Corpn.of Gr.Mumbai.& ors.Respondents

¶8

Mr.Behram Shroff with Mr.A.B.Ketkay for Petitioner
Ms A.R.Joshi for Respondents.

¶9

CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J

¶10

DATED : 10th August, 2005

¶11

P.C.

¶12

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
the respondents.

¶13

2. The petition is directed against the order
dated 21st March 2005 (Exhibit B) assessing the
rateable value in respect of the petitioner’s
property.

¶14

3. Learned counsel for the respondents raises a

¶15

¶16

preliminary objection to the maintainibility of the
petition stating that an appeal is provided under
section 217 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act
(for short the Act) against the impugned order. It
is not the rule of law that whereever an appeal has
been provided a writ petition cannot be
entertained. It is however a practise and rule of
prudence consistently followed by this court not to
entertain a writ petition when the statute provides
for an appeal and the appeal is an adequate and
efficacious remedy available in the matter. It is
not the case of the petitioner that the appeal
provided under section 217 of the MMC Act is not an
adequate and efficacious remedy. All that is
contended that the order is grossly wrong.
Assuming so the petitioner has an adequate and
equally efficacious remedy. I am therefore not
inclined to entertain the petition. Petition is
accordingly dismissed summarily.

¶17

4. Learned counsel for the respondents states that
if an appeal is filed against the impugned order
within four weeks from the date of this order the
respondent would not object for the condonation of
delay. Statement is recorded and accepted.

¶18

¶19

D.G.KARNIK, J

Aniruddh C. Bhatt v. the Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aniruddh C. Bhatt v. the Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharavi Vivekanand Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Chowgule and Co. Vs Unite Mine Worker Union and Anr.

Mrs. Kashmira Leo Rebello Vs M/S. Himalaya Drug Co.

Bombay Hospital Trust Vs Chandrika Prasad and Anr.

Mrs. Sunanda Janardan Rangnekar Vs the Rahul Apartment No.Ii Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors.

Miss T.v.Shah Vs Mrs. Panna Shah and Ors.