Dismissed

Sudhir Rawtu, Prop. of M/S. Megha Constructions v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Feb 2007WP/2898/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the cancellation of a No Objection Certificate. The court dismissed a chamber summons to implead tenants and dismissed the writ petition, upholding the N.O.C. cancellation as just and proper due to the petitioner's deficiencies, while directing him to seek damages in civil court.

What did the court decide?

Chamber summons dismissed; Writ petition dismissed with direction to seek civil remedy for damages.

Sudhir Rawtu, Prop. of M/S. Megha… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO. 2898 OF 2005

¶5

 WITH

¶6

 CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 378 OF 2005

¶7

 Sudhir Shyam Rawtu
 Proprietor,
 M/s. Megha Constructions. .. Petitioner.

¶8

vs.

¶9

 State of Maharashtra

¶10

 & Ors. .. Respondents.

¶11

 Mr. R.V. Govilkar for petitioner.

¶12

 Mr. G.W. Mattos, AGP., for Respondent nos. 1 to 3.
 <r/ A.A. Joshi i/by Ms. T.S. Patwardhan for

¶13

 Respondent No.4.

¶14

Coram: J.N. PATEL &,

¶15

 S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.

¶16

 Date: 20th February, 2007.

¶17

 P.C.

¶18

 . The Chamber summons is taken out for impleading
 the tenants of the building. In our view, the tenants
 are not necessary or proper parties for adjudication of

¶19

¶20

 the matter and, therefore, the chamber summons is
 dismissed.

¶21

 2. Heard.

¶22

 3. The Petitioner has approached this Court for
 seeking a direction to quash the impugned order dated
 14.3.2005 under which the petitioner’s N.O.C. dated
 3.1.2002 came to be cancelled. The petitioner is a
 proprietor of M/s. Megha Constructions who has
 undertaken to develop the property of the respondent
 no. 4. As the petitioner was not able to comply with
 the conditions on the basis of which N.O.C. was
 granted, a show cause notice came to be issued by the
 Chief Officer of Respondent No. 2 and pursuant to the
 said show cause notice, and after hearing the
 Petitioner the N.O.C. came to be cancelled.

¶23

 4. In the affidavit in reply, the Deputy Engineer
 of MHADA has spelt out the conduct of the petitioner
 which makes him ineligible for carrying out with the
 project and particularly in paragraph 6 of the
 affidavit in reply dated 16.7.2005. In our view, this
 itself speaks of the deficiencies on the part of the
 petitioner and, therefore, we find that the impugned
 action taken by respondent no. 2 in cancelling the
 N.O.C., which was earlier granted in favour of the
 petitioner, is just and proper and does not call for
 any interference. Petition dismissed.

¶24

¶25

 5. We make it clear that in case the petitioner
 has any claim relating to damages, etc., against the
 respondent, he is at liberty to seek alternative remedy
 in Civil Court, subject to law of limitation.

¶26

 (J.N. Patel, J. )

¶27

 (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. )

Sudhir Rawtu, Prop. of M/S. Megha Constructions v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhir Rawtu, Prop. of M/S. Megha Constructions v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kum. Kiran Jaising Sapkal Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Archer Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Jai Bharat Synthetics Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Gaurav Vilas Wankhade Vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

K.J. Somaiya Medical Trust and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sai Leela Shejar Samiti Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.