Disposed

St. Anthonys Homes Co-Operative Society Ltd. v. the Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika and 9 Ors.

Bombay HC4 Oct 2010WP/1030/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay disposed of a writ petition challenging unauthorised toilet and cemetery wall construction by a Church. The Court directed demolition, noting the non-compliance with earlier directives and the unauthorized nature of the work.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to demolish the unauthorised structure immediately.

St. Anthonys Homes Co-Operative Society Ltd. Vs the Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika and 9 Ors. — Bombay HC (2010) — LawSathi Research

wp/1030/10

SSK/

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 1030 OF 2010

¶6

St. Antohony’s Homes Co-operative Society Ltd. Versus The Brihanmumbai Mahanagar Palika & Ors.

¶7

....Petitioners

¶8

....Respondents.

¶9

Mr. Denzil D’Mello, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Shobha Ajithkumar, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. Amol K. Tembe, Advocate for respondent no.6. Mr. S. P. Thorat, Advocate for respondent no.10.

¶10

CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & R. V. MORE, JJ.

¶11

DATED : 4^th OCTOBER, 2010.

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

The petitioner is a Co-operative Housing Society duly registered under the Co-operative Society’s Act, 1925. In short the grievance of the petitioners is that 6^th respondent- Church has constructed toilets, walls of the cemetery with niches in the Society’s premises which are not as per the DC regulations.

¶14

The petitioners had earlier filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No.

¶15

1930 of 2009 making the same grievance. That petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court presided over by the then Chief Justice Shri Swatantar Kumar by directing the Corporation to treat the writ petition alongwith its annexures as representation and after hearing the petitioners, pass an appropriate order in the matter expeditiously.

¶16

wp/1030/10 2 SSK/

¶17

We are informed that accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner, M/West Ward, Mumbai – 400 071 treated the earlier writ petition as representation, heard all the parties including respondent no.6 and passed order dated 30^th December, 2009. The Assistant Commissioner directed respondent no.6 – Church and MHADA Section Engineer to approach the petitioners and get their NOC and thereafter to approach Executive Engineer (Building Proposal) Eastern Suburbs through licensed architect and get the unauthorized work regularized within one month. The Assistant Commissioner observed that if this course of action was not followed, his Office will demolish the unauthorized work at the risk and cost of respondent no.6-Church and MHADA. Admittedly, respondent no.6 did not abide by this order. That is the reason, why the petitioners have filed the present petition.

¶18

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. On the last occasion i.e. 20^th September, 2010, we had recorded the statement made by the counsel for the 6^th respondent - Church that the 6^th respondent will make an application for no objection certificate to the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners-society made a statement that the said application will be considered in its proper perspective and in accordance with law. We are informed by the counsel for the petitioners that the 6^th respondent did not approach the petitioners. Counsel for the 6^th respondent has tendered in the Court, a representation dated 29^th September, 2010 which according to him was submitted to the petitioners on 3^rd October, 2010 i.e. last evening.

wp/1030/10

SSK/

We deprecate this conduct of the 6^th respondent. The statement of the counsel for 6^th respondent was recorded as far back on 20^th September, 2010. The 6^th respondent did not abide by the said statement. We take serious note of the fact that the 6^th respondent chose to approach the petitioners only a day before the matter appeared on board i.e. on 3^rd October, 2010. Therefore, it is clear that the 6^th respondent never wanted to abide by the statement made in this Court. Prima-facie, it appears to us that the structure is unauthorized and not as per the DC regulations. The conduct of the 6^th respondent in avoiding to approach the petitioners itself suggests this.

¶23

We, therefore, direct respondent nos. 1 to 5 to take steps in accordance with law. That would obviously mean demolishing the structure, which according to them is unauthorised. We expect the Corporation to take steps immediately. The petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶24

(R. V. MORE, J.)

¶25

(SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.)

St. Anthonys Homes Co-Operative Society Ltd. v. the Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika and 9 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

St. Anthonys Homes Co-Operative Society Ltd. v. the Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika and 9 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

Ichalkaranji Municipal Council Vs Shilajadevi @ Vahinisaheb Trimbak Rao Pratinidhi and Othrs

Ichalkaranji Municipal Council Vs Shailjadevi @ Vahinisaheb Trimbakrao Pratinidhi D.H. Trimbakrao @ Appasaheb Bhavanrao Pratinidhi an

Ichalkaranji Municipal Council Vs Shailjadevi @ Vahinisaheb Trimbakrao Pratinidhi D.H. Trimbakrao @ Appasaheb Bhavanrao Pratinidhi an

Rushabh Builders Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

Naina Deepak Kamani Vs Janson Engineering and Trading Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Mahesh Tukaram Vengurlekar and 2 Ors. Vs the Mumbai Municipal Corporation and 4 Ors.