Quashed

Gerald Paul D Mello v. the Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Mumbai

Bombay HC8 Aug 2007WP/1857/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed an order dated 18 April 2007 issued by an Executive Engineer without reasons, holding it violated natural justice under Article 226 and directed the respondent to pass an order afresh within four weeks with reasons.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 18 April 2007 passed by the Executive Engineer is quashed; the respondent is directed to pass an appropriate order afresh within four weeks after recording reasons.

Gerald Paul D Mello Vs the Municipal Corpn. of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

 -: 1 :-

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

 WRIT PETITION (Lodg.) NO. 1156 OF 2007

¶5

 Gerald Paul D’Mello... ... ... Petitioner.
 Versus

¶6

 The Mumbai Municipal Corporation
 of Greater Mumbai & Ors......... Respondents.

¶7

 Mr. P.J.Thorat for the Petitioner.
 Ms.S.Ajith Kumar for the Respondents.

¶8

CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. &
DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.

¶9

DATED : 8TH AUGUST, 2007.

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

 The challenge in this petition, under Article 226
 of the Constitution of India, is to the order dated
 18th April, 2007 passed by the Executive Engineer
 (Building Proposal) of the Corporation. Vide the
 impugned order it was stated as under:

¶12

 "To demolish / remove the work carried out beyond

¶13

 repair permission granted under No.
 ACKE/22073/BF dt. 5.10.2006, as repair work
 carried out / undertaken which is not in
 accordance with the permission granted by A.E.
 (B&F) K/E Ward."

¶14

 -: 2 :-

¶15

 2. A bare reading of the impugned order shows that no
 reasons whatsoever have been stated in the impugned
 order, for passing the order, which certainly affects
 the rights of the petitioner. Wherever the Authority
 is deciding any right of the party, it is expected not
 only to hear the party but also give reasons in
 support of the order. The reasons are certainly
 expected for arriving at such a conclusion. The
 reasoning must be atleast indicative of application of
 mind which could be seen from the language of the
 order itself.

¶16

 3. We are satisfied that the impugned order violates
 the basic principles of natural justice. Resultantly,
 we quash and set aside the order dated 18th April,
 2007 passed by the Executive Engineer, (B&F) Ward of
 the Corporation and direct the respondent to pass an
 appropriate order afresh after recording reasons in
 support of the order. This should be done within four
 weeks from today and till then the impugned order
 shall not be enforced against the petitioner. The
 petitioner will appear before the Authority concerned
 on 21st August, 2007 at 11.00 a.m.

¶17

 4. In the event, the order that may be passed by the

¶18

 -: 3 :-

¶19

 concerned Authority, is adverse to the interest of the

¶20

 petitioner, the same shall not be implemented for a

¶21

 period of one week thereafter.

¶22

5. No order as to costs.

¶23

 Sd/-

¶24

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶25

 Sd/-

¶26

DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.

Gerald Paul D Mello v. the Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gerald Paul D Mello v. the Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Mumbai

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

All India Bata Shop Managers Union and 2 Ors. Vs Bata India Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Ramky Enviro Engineers Ltd. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 9 Ors.

Mrs. Najamai Noshir (Sheriar ) Bezon Irani and 6 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Prakash Tukaram Neel Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The Stock Exchange Vs Brij B.Nahak, and Ors.

Finolex Academy of Management and Technology and Anr. Vs Directrorate of Technical Education , Maharashtra State and 3 Ors.