Dismissed

Prakash Anant Patil and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC4 Oct 2006WP/223/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay allowed the petitioner's application challenging a municipal council notice based on Section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act. The court directed them to approach the Collector within four weeks and continued interim protection during this period. The petition was disposed accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to file application before Collector within four weeks; interim protection continued during such period.

Prakash Anant Patil and Ors. Vs the State of… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

Writ Petition No.223 of 2004

¶4

Prakash Anant Patil & ors.

¶5

Petitioners

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & anr.

¶8

Respondents

¶9

Mr.P.S.Dani for petitioners.

¶10

Ms.M.P.Thakur, AGP for resp.no.1.

¶11

Mr.N.V.Walawalkar, Sr.Counsel with Mr.G.H. Keluskar for resp.no.2.

¶12

CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & NARESH H.PATIL,JJ.

¶13

October 04, 2006.

¶14

P.C.

¶15

Heard Mr.Dani, the learned counsel for the

¶16

petitioners and they have mainly challenged the

¶17

notice dated 21/10/2002 issued by the Chief Officer

¶18

of Uran Municipal Council in Raigad District.

¶19

Apparently the said notice is based on the

¶20

resol	ution		passed	on	12/2/2002	(Resolu	tion	no.18)	by
the	Munic	ipal	Council	and	even	though	it	is pu	rported
to	have	been	passed	under	Section	37 of	the	MRTP	Act,
the	lang	uage	of	Section	308	of	the	Mah	arashtra
Muni	cipalities		Act,	1965 is	very	clear	and	the	said
resol	ution	on	the	basis	of wh	ich the	im	pugned	notice

¶21

¶22

has been issued can be challenged by the petitioners under the said Section. The ambit of Section 308 has been interpreted by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjay Govind Sapkal & ors. v. Collector of Dhule & ors. [2003 (3) Bom.C.R. 550] . We, therefore, deem it appropriate to relegate the petitioners to the alternative remedy before the Collector, Alibaug. If the petitioners file an application challenging the Resolution No.18 passed on 12/2/2002 by the Uran Municipal Council within a period of four weeks from today, the interim

¶23

protection granted by this Court will continue to

¶24

operate for the said period of four weeks.

¶25

. The petition is disposed off in terms of the

¶26

above directions.

¶27

(NARESH H. PATIL,J.)

¶28

(B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)

Prakash Anant Patil and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Anant Patil and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Malti Ben Jayantilal Sagar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rajendra Harishchandra Bibwekar Vs Tahasildar Alibag and Ors.

Varsha Shyam Amlani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sitaram Narayan Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and 10 Ors.

Manohar Budhaji Patil Vs D. Shivanandan and Ors.

Sikandar Mehmood Sayyed @ Sayyed Shakir Mohd. Badshah @ Sikku @ Shakir @ Mapala @ Takala Sikander Vs A.N. Roy and Ors.