Disposed

Leak Proof Engineering (I) Private Limited v. Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Bombay HC22 Apr 2010WP/66/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition the High Court granted relief to the petitioner, ordering the respondent Mumbai Municipal Corporation to reconsider its proposal for the regularisation of a mezzanine floor and to pass a speaking order within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is directed to be given an opportunity of hearing, and the Corporation must take a decision on the regularisation proposal within eight weeks.

Leak Proof Engineering (I) Private Limited Vs Mumbai… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORIGINAL SIDE
WRIT PETITION NO.66 OF 2010

¶3

Leak Proof Engineering
(I) Private Limited.... Petitioners
Vs.

¶4

Mumbai Municipal Corporation
& Anr..... Respondents

¶5

Shri P.J. Thorat for the Petitioners.
Ms V.S. Gharpure for the Respondents.

¶6

CORAM: J.N. PATEL AND
 A.P. BHANGALE, JJ.

¶7

DATED: APRIL 22, 2010

¶8

P.C:

¶9

1.Heard the learned counsel appearing
for the parties.

¶10

2.The petitioners have approached this
Court seeking a direction against the
respondents for considering regularisation of
mezzanine floor in their premises i.e., Unit
No.1-FGPQ, Building No.1, Laxmi Industrial
Estate, Andheri (West), Mumbai-53, which is
located on the structure consisting of M.S.
Angle and Ladi Coba and wooden ply flooring

¶11

¶12

admeasuring 77� 0� x 19� 10� and 94� 10� x 90�
10� (except 15� 8� x 15� 10� open space).

¶13

3.It is the case of the petitioners that
they had applied to the responents for
regularisation of the said mezzanine floor but
the same came to be turned down by their
communication dated 13-3-2008 for the reason
that the petitioners had not submitted the NOC
from the owner of the plot. It is the case of
the petitioners that a day later i.e., on
14-3-2008, the petitioners submitted the NOC
from the owner of the plot and requested the
respondents to process the proposal further and
oblige.

¶14

4.By the letter dated 31-12-2008, the

¶15

petitioners were again communicated by the
respondents that though the Corporation had
requested the petitioners to submit the
requisite documents so as to consider their
proposal, but as considerable period had
elapsed and the petitioners had failed to
comply with the said letter, their proposal for
regularisation of the mezzanine floor has been
rejected with a rider that if the petitioners
wish to apply, they may apply through their
registered architect along with the requisite

¶16

¶17

documents.

¶18

5.The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners submitted that as the petitioners
had sufficiently complied with all the
requirements, the respondents ought to have
considered their proposal for regularisation of
the mezzanine floor, as sought. It has been
pointed out that the earlier correspondence
clearly goes to show the compliance made by the
petitioners by submitting the requisite
documents, as mentioned in the communication
dated 14-3-2008 and, therefore, the said
letter/communication deserves to be quashed and
set aside.

¶19

6.The learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-Corporationsubmitsthatthe
petitioners� proposal came to be rejected vide
the communication dated 13-3-2008 and further
the communication dated 31-12-2008 is just a
follow-up.

¶20

7.We find that the petitioners having
submitted the NOC from the owner and having
complied with all the requirements as mentioned
in their letter dated 14-3-2008, there is no
reason why the respondent-Corporation should

¶21

not reconsider the proposal of the petitioners,
if permitted under the law, and shall pass
necessary speaking order, after giving an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

¶22

8.We, therefore, direct the respondent-
Corporation to take a decision in the matter in
accordance with law within a period of eight
weeks from the date of communication of this
order, to be communicated by the petitioners to
the respondent-Corporation. The petition stands
disposed of accordingly.

¶23

9.All concerned to act on the
authenticated copy of this order.

Leak Proof Engineering (I) Private Limited v. Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Leak Proof Engineering (I) Private Limited v. Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Anr.

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

Rajesh Vijendra Sharma Vs the Mumbai Municipal Corporation and 12 Ors.

Petroleum Products Dealers and Manufacturers Association Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sanjay Krishnarao Taksande Vs Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Powai Planet Co-Operative Housing Society Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Maharshi Balmiki Co-Operative Housing Society (Prop.) and Anr. Vs the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and 6 Ors.

Capt.Jayprakash v.Gadgil Vs Indian Airlines Ltd.and Anr.