Disposed

Sundaram Co-Op.Society Ltd.and Ors. v. Mun.Corpn.for Gr.Bombay

Bombay HC13 Aug 2009WP/1121/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition by a Co-operative Society seeking direction against change of user for running a school, the High Court directed the petitioner to file a representation regarding alleged non-compliance of conditions within four weeks before deciding the matter further.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to file a representation within four weeks regarding non-compliance of conditions for change of user.

Sundaram Co-Op.Society Ltd.and Ors. Vs Mun.Corpn.for… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.1121 OF 1998

¶4

Sundaram Co-op.Society Ltd.& Ors. V/s Municipal Corpn.of Gr.Bombay & Ors.

¶5

.. Petitioners

¶6

.. Respondents

¶7

Mr.H.S.S.Murthy for the Petitioners. Ms.S.M.Modle for Respondent No.1. Mr.K.P.Jain i/by Mr.Tushar Goradia for Res.Nos.4 to 6.

¶8

CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 13th August, 2009.

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

By this petition, the petitioner which is the Co-operative Housing Society claims a direction to Respondent No.1 - Corporation and Respondent No.2 - State of Maharashtra, not to permit Respondent Nos.4 to 6 to run the School in the building of the Society by granting change of user.

¶11

It is clear from the order passed by this Court dated 30th June, 1998 that the statement was made before the Court on behalf of Respondent Nos.3 to 8 that by letter dated 21st May, 1998 written by the Executive Engineer, Building Proposal of the Corporation that the permission to change of user was granted subject to certain

¶12

¶13

conditions. The petitioner has not chosen to amend this petition thereafter and challenge the said permission. From the report of the Commissioner which is on record (who was appointed by this Court), appears that it was found that in the year 1998 itself that School was actually running in the building.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner however submitted that the permission to change of user was granted without there being any permission from the Society. He also submits that the conditions subject to which the permission was granted by the Corporation have also not been complied with.

¶15

As in the petition there is no challenge to the permission granted for the change of user, we cannot go into those aspects. However, the learned counsel for the Corporation submitted that if it is the case of the petitioner that the Respondent Nos.3 to 6 have not complied with the conditions subject to which permission was granted, the petitioner can make a representation to the Corporation making that grievance and if such a representation is made by them, it will be enquired into. In our opinion therefore the following order would meet the ends of justice:-

¶16

ORDER

¶17

“Within a period of four weeks from today the petitioner to make a representation to the Executive Engineer, Building Proposal of the

¶18

¶19

Respondent No.1 Corporation making grievance against the grant of permission for change of user, as also in relation to non compliance of the conditions subject to which the alleged permission has been granted. The petitioner shall serve an advance copy of that representation to Respondent Nos.4 to 6. The representation shall be addressed to the Executive Engineer, Building Proposal of the Corporation. The said officer shall permit Respondent Nos.4 to 6 also to submit any evidence before him. He shall thereafter pass a speaking order on the representation/application and dispose it of in accordance with law. The order that the said officer may pass, shall be communicated to the petitioner as also the Respondent Nos.4 to 6. Interim order which is presently operating in this petition shall continue to operate till the Officer of the Corporation makes an order on the representation/application and communicates the same to the parties. Petition disposed of. No order as to costs. All contentions of both sides are kept open.”

Sundaram Co-Op.Society Ltd.and Ors. v. Mun.Corpn.for Gr.Bombay

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sundaram Co-Op.Society Ltd.and Ors. v. Mun.Corpn.for Gr.Bombay

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

Suman M.Patil Vs the Bombay Mun.Corpn. and Anr.

Dr. Sangeeta T. Amladi Vs Greater Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Arvind Govind Naik Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ramchandra Ramswarup Vs Union of India and Ors.

Krantikari Suraksha Rakshak Sanghatana Vs the Securiti Guards Board for Greater Bombay and Ors.

A.G.Ahire Vs Food Corpn.of India and Ors.