Chandar Gurnomal Rohra Vs the Municipal Corporation of Pimpri and Chinchwad and Ors.

It has been stated on behalf of the Corporation that the first floor of the property was unauthorised, which according to the Corporation has been demolished completely. It is further stated that Commissioner has

¶13

passed an order dated 20^th July 2009 in relation to suit structure and even the ground floor according to them is unauthorised.

¶14

Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant in Civil Application No.

¶15

56 of 2009 which is an application for impleadment submits that the demolition was done without notice to him and not in accordance with law and the structure is authorised and that he has conducted repairs as are permissible.

¶16

Be that as it may, it is not for us to go into this question particularly in view of the disputed facts. We dispose of this Petition by granting liberty to the Applicant to take steps as are permissible to him in accordance with law in furtherance of the notice dated 20^th July 2009. We also give liberty to the Corporation to take such steps as may be advised in accordance with law.

¶17

We make it clear that any order hereinafter passed would not be influenced in any manner by the orders passed in the present Petition.

¶18

Status-quo order passed in the Writ Petition to continue for a period of two weeks. Writ Petition and the Application both are disposed of accordingly.

¶19

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶20

A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

Chandar Gurnomal Rohra v. the Municipal Corporation of Pimpri and Chinchwad and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandar Gurnomal Rohra v. the Municipal Corporation of Pimpri and Chinchwad and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Francisco D. Luis Vs the Director, Board of Seconday and Higher Secondary Education, Maharashtra and Anr.

H-W Ward Citizens Trust Vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Dighi Koli Samaj Mumbai Rahivasi Sangh (Regd.) Vs Union of India and Ors.

Amit Jaisingh Saraiya Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Arvind Nerkar Vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Anant Hari Padhye Gurjar and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anant Hari Padhye Gurjar and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Support India Foundation and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

The Luxury Holidays Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The Luxury Holidays Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mrs Rita Subhash Shah Vs Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation and Ors.