Allowed

John Misquiitta and Ors. v. Municipalcorporation for the City of Thane and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Dec 2007WP/8217/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court bench disposed of a writ petition filed by John Misquitta challenging a development permission granted by the Municipal Corporation to a builder. The petitioners alleged the permission survived a death but was defective. The Court dismissed their objection regarding the Corporation's authority, held that ex-parte disposal was valid, and directed the Corporation to decide within six

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of in terms of prayer clause (d), directing Respondent No.1 to take a decision within six weeks.

John Misquiitta and Ors. Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO.8217 OF 2007

¶5

 John Misquitta & Others .. Petitioners

¶6

Vs.

¶7

 Municipal Corporation for the
 City of Thane & Ors. .. Respondents

¶8

 Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar, Sr.Advocate for the
 petitioners

¶9

 Mr.R.S.Apte with Mr.Vaibhav Patankar for respondent
 no.1 (a) to 1(c)

¶10

 CORAM : J.N.PATEL &
 SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ.

¶11

DATED : 7TH DECEMBER, 2007

¶12

 P.C.:

¶13

 1. Heard.

¶14

 2. The petitioners restrict the relief sought

¶15

 in the petition to prayer clause (d). It is the
 case of the petitioners that respondent no.2
 Builder has obtained the development permission of
 the land belonging to the petitioner no.1’s wife
 under the power of attorney which did not survive

¶16

¶17

 after her death against which though the
 petitioners have made a representation to
 respondent no.1, respondent no.1 did not make
 necessary enquiry. They are yet to take an
 appropriate decision and, therefore, if this court
 directs respondent no.1 Corporation to take
 appropriate decision by the officers of respondent
 no.1 in respect of complaints filed by the
 petitioner that will subserve the purpose so that
 the petitioner is then free to seek alternate
 remedy available to him under the law.

¶18

 3. We do not find that in the given facts and
 circumstances, respondent no.1 Corporation can have
 any objection in the matter being a statutory body
 and having issued a development permission dated
 20.2.06 bearing V.P. No. 2005/98 to respondent
 no.2 builder. We also find that the petition can
 be disposed of without notice to respondent no.2 as
 it is needless to state that the respondent no.2
 Corporation would definitely give an opportunity of
 hearing to respondent no.2 in the matter of
 grievance raised by the petitioner no.1 before
 respondent no.1. We therefore, dispose of this

¶19

¶20

 petition in terms of prayer clause (d). This court
 expects respondent no.1 to take a decision in the
 matter within a period of 6 weeks. The petitioners

¶21

 to convey the order to respondent Corporation.

¶22

 ( J.N. PATEL, J )

¶23

 ( SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J )

John Misquiitta and Ors. v. Municipalcorporation for the City of Thane and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

John Misquiitta and Ors. v. Municipalcorporation for the City of Thane 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

Mundhe Devidas Bhagawan Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dhansingh v Ithalrao Bhoite Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rajaram Daga Kale Vs the Zilla Parishad (Secondary), Nashik and Ors.

Ajaykumar Bhatia and Ors. Vs Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Mumbai and Ors,.

Global Boards Limited Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Madhukar Dattatraya Chaudhary Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.