shri p. ponraj v. muncipal corporation of gr.mum and 4 Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
Petitioner sought writ against Municipal Corporation's regularization order for a prayer hall. Court held writ jurisdiction inapposite as the Petitioner did not challenge regularization itself but contentious title issues, for which alternative statutory remedies under the Bombay Public Trusts Act remain open.
What the court decided
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
O. O. C. J.
WRIT PETITION NO.2576 OF 2006
P. Ponraj
..Petitioner.
Vs.
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors.
..Respondents.
Mr. J.B. Mishra for the Petitioner. Mrs. A.R. Joshi for Respondents 1 to 4.
CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
18th December, 2006.
P.C. :
- The Petition impugns an order dated 16th February, 2006 passed by the Municipal Commissioner and a communication dated 6th June, 2006 of the Project Officer (Dharavi) G-North Ward. The Municipal Commissioner by the first of those orders issued directions for the regularization of a structure which is being used as a prayer hall at Dharavi. The order notes that the structure is being used by the Indian Christian Assembly Church. By the second communication dated 6th June, 2006 the Project Officer has intimated to the Petitioner that the penalty which had been worked out in accordance with the order of the Municipal Commissioner
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is appropriate to challenge regularization involving a disputed question of title.
Whether the High Court should exercise jurisdiction given alternative remedies regarding trust title remain available.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
P. Ponraj
- respondent
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
- other
Indian Christian Assembly Church
- other
Indian Christian Assembly Trust
- respondent
Fifth Respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court