Disposed

Taranath Sunder Shetty v. the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and 7 Ors.

Bombay HC6 Jul 2010WP/640/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Municipal Commissioner to decide the regularization application filed by the owner expeditiously within one month. The court reserved the petitioner's complaints on the legality of the construction to be decided after the regularization exercise, referring any dispute to the Chief Judge of Small Causes Court under the Municipal Corporat

What did the court decide?

Direction to Municipal Commissioner to decide the owner's regularization application within one month; referral of retained disputes to Chief Judge of Small Causes Court under Section 18.

Taranath Sunder Shetty Vs the Commissioner of Municipal… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

W.P.640/10

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 640 OF 2010

¶6

Taranath Sunder Shetty ).. Petitioner

¶7

versus

¶8

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ) and others ).. Respondents

¶9

Mr. R.S. Datar for the Petitioner. Mrs. Geeta Jogalekar for Respondent Nos.1 to 5. Mr. Manoj J. Bhatt for Respondent Nos.6 and 7.

¶10

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 6TH JULY 2010

¶11

P.C.

¶12

In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for writ of mandamus to direct the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (i) to forthwith hear and decide the petitioner’s complaints dated 4^th February 2009, 13^th February 2009 and 12^th March 2009 in respect of what the petitioner contends as the liability of respondent No.6 to be disqualified under section 16(1)(1D) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 and (ii) to take action of demolition against the illegal construction carried out by respondent Nos.6 and 7 at the premises in question.

¶13

¶14

W.P.640/10

¶15

The learned Advocate for respondent Nos.6 and 7 states that the said respondents have not put up any illegal construction and that whatever construction is considered by the petitioner as illegal, for regularization of that construction the owner of the premises has already made an application to the Municipal Commissioner on 14^th June 2010 through the Architect of the owner.

¶16

In view of the above, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction that the Municipal Commissioner or his delegate being Executive Engineer, Building Proposals Department shall decide the application/ representation dated 14^th June 2010 of the owner of the premises in question made through their Architect Mr.Ramesh Dalvi as expeditiously as possible and in any case within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

¶17

Depending upon the outcome of that exercise, the Municipal Commissioner shall thereafter take up the petitioner’s complaints/ representations dated 4^th February 2009, 13^th February 2009 and 12^th March 2009 and if it is found that still there is dispute about the legality or otherwise of the construction, such dispute shall be referred to the learned Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court under Section 18 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.

¶18

In case it becomes necessary to decide the petitioner’s complaints/representations as indicated above, the Municipal Commissioner

¶19

¶20

W.P.640/10

¶21

shall give the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and decide the same as expeditiously as possible and preferably within three months.

¶22

In view of the above, nothing survives in the present writ petition and the same stands disposed of accordingly.

¶23

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶24

S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.

Taranath Sunder Shetty v. the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Taranath Sunder Shetty v. the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri.Satywan Daji Sartape Vs Katphal Education Soceity and Others

M/S. Liberty Commodities Limited Vs the Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Airport Authority of India Vs Election Commission of India and 5 Ors.

Vishwanath D Borkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Girreddy Suryanarayan Reddy Vs Chief Commissioner for Persons With Disabilities and 9 Ors.

Sarvodaya Jan Vikas Shangh Vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation and 2 Ors.