Disposed

Yashwant Dagdu Pawar v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and 9 Ors.

Bombay HC2 Mar 2012WP/2113/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Municipal Commissioner to consider the petitioner's request for a separate water connection under Section 271 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act within four weeks by holding an inquiry, even without a no objection certificate from the house owner.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Commissioner to consider the request for water connection under the proviso to Section 271 within four weeks after giving an opportunity to all concerned.

Yashwant Dagdu Pawar Vs the Municipal Corporation of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2012)

2113.11

SQP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2113 OF 2011

¶5

Yashwant Dagdu Pawar ...Petitioner Versus The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors. ...Respondents

¶6

Mr.Yogendra Pendse for Petitioner.

¶7

Ms.Aarti Kamble h/f Ms.Geeta Joglekar for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.

¶8

Mr.V.K.Gupta for Respondent Nos.5 to 9.

¶9

CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND N.M.JAMDAR, JJ. DATED:- MARCH 2, 2012.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

This Petition essentially takes exception to the communication dated

¶12

30^th May, 2008 issued under the signature of Assistant Engineer (W.W.)/`L’

¶13

Ward intimating the petitioner that his request for granting separate water connection to premises occupied by him cannot be considered in absence of

¶14

no objection certificate from house owner.

¶15

In this backdrop, present Petition has been filed for direction against

¶16

respondent Nos.1 to 4 to take necessary steps for sanction of the private

¶17

water connection to the petitioner for his residential use from underground

¶18

¶19

2113.11

¶20

water pipelines on Late Dinesh Patil Road’ in the locality popularly known as Taadwadi’, Sion-Chunabhatti, Mumbai-22. Reliance is placed on proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 271 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 to contend that even in absence of no objection certificate issued by the house owner, the Commissioner is duty bound to consider the request of the petitioner, albeit, by holding necessary inquiry and by payment of cost of connecting the supply pipes and subject to such other conditions (including those for payment of water taxes and water charges) as the Commissioner may deem fit to impose That option has not been explored by the Commissioner – respondent No.1.

¶21

In the circumstances, we dispose of this Petition with direction to the Commissioner-respondent No.1 or any Municipal Officer to whom such powers, duties or functions ascribable to Section 271 can be and are duly delegated under the Act, to consider the request of the petitioner by exercising powers under proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 271 of the Act after giving opportunity to all concerned. That decision be taken within four weeks from today.

¶22

¶23

2113.11

¶24

The petitioner and respondent Nos.5 to 9 may remain present in the Office of the Commissioner on 6^th March, 2012 at 11.00 a.m., when the hearing in respect of the aforesaid proposal can proceed or some other date is assigned to ensure that final decision is taken within four weeks from today and communicated to the parties within the same time. The private parties shall cooperate for early decision by the Commissioner.

¶25

(N.M.JAMDAR, J.)

¶26

(A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)

Yashwant Dagdu Pawar v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and 9 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yashwant Dagdu Pawar v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and 9 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

Modern Usha Colony Co-Operative Hsg. Soc. Ltd., Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Bhagwandas Gupta Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Prakash Offset Printers, through Partners, Prakash B. Khanjire and Ors. Vs Ichalkaranji Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd, through Liquidator and Ors.

Vitthal Corporation Ltd, through Bandopant Madhukar Sathe Vs Union of India, through Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution Dept and Ors.

Vitthal Corporation Ltd, through Bandopant Madhukar Sathe Vs Union of India, through Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution Dept and Ors.

Pravin Vasant Ransure Vs Shikshan Prasarak Mandali, through Secretary/Chairman and Ors.