Dismissed

Shri. Sanjay Pundalik Patil v. Kolhapur Municipal Corporation, through Commissioner and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Oct 2012WP/9122/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that the Municipal Commissioner failed to record satisfaction under Section 81-B(1) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, necessitating a fresh order after affording the petitioner a hearing opportunity.

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner shall pass a fresh order after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Shri. Sanjay Pundalik Patil Vs Kolhapur… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

WP9122_12.sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.9122 OF 2012

¶4

Shri Sanjay Pundalik Patil Vs. Kolhapur Municipal Corporation through its Commissioner and another

¶5

… Petitioner

¶6

... Respondents

¶7

Mr. Manoj A. Patil for the Petitioner. Mr. Aniket Nikam for Respondents.

¶8

CORAM: DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND R. G. KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 23 OCTOBER, 2012

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

A notice to show cause was issued to the Petitioner on 28 July 2012 calling upon him to explain as to why proceedings should not be instituted against him under Section 81-B of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. The Petitioner submitted a reply on 9 August 2011. On 16 November 2011, the Petitioner was called for a hearing before the Commissioner of the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation, the First Respondent. The grievance of the Petitioner is that thereafter, he has not received any formal order.

¶11

Counsel appearing on behalf of the First Respondent has placed on record the Roznama dated 24 January 2012 of the proceedings before the Municipal Commissioner which were inter alia attended by the Petitioner. The Roznama does not indicate that the Municipal Commissioner has recorded his satisfaction under Section 81-B(1), which is necessary before an order of eviction is passed.

¶12

In the circumstances, we are of the view that it would be appropriate for the Commissioner of the First Respondent to recall the

¶13

1/3

¶14

WP9122_12.sxw

¶15

directions contained in the Roznama which is produced on record and to pass a fresh order after hearing the Petitioner.

¶16

Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has stated before the Court on instructions that the Petitioner will withdraw Regular Civil Suit No.413 of 2010 instituted by the Petitioner before the Civil Court within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the authenticated copy of this order.

¶17

In the circumstances, we dispose of the Petition in the following terms:

¶18

(i) The Commissioner of the First Respondent shall pass a fresh order on the notice to show cause issued to the Petitioner under Section 81-B of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 after furnishing to the Petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard;

¶19

(ii) The Petitioner undertakes to withdraw Regular Civil Suit No.413 of 2010 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the authenticated copy of this order;

¶20

(iii) The Petitioner shall appear before the Commissioner of the First Respondent for receiving directions on 29 October 2012 at twelve noon, on which date, necessary directions will be issued for the early hearing of the proceedings;

¶21

(iv) In order to facilitate this exercise, the directions contained in the Roznama dated 24 January 2012, a copy of which is produced before the Court and taken on record, shall stand set aside without the expression of any opinion of the Court on the merits of the rival contentions.

¶22

2/3

¶23

WP9122_12.sxw

¶24

Since the Court is informed that the Commissioner of the First Respondent is on study leave and additional charge has been handed over to the Collector, Kolhapur, we clarify that in the circumstances, the aforesaid direction shall apply to the Authority holding charge of the post of the Commissioner, Kolhapur Municipal Corporation.

¶25

The Commissioner shall dispose of the proceedings within a period of two weeks from the date of hearing.

¶26

The Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

(DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.)

¶28

Minal Parab

¶29

3/3

Shri. Sanjay Pundalik Patil v. Kolhapur Municipal Corporation, through Commissioner and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Sanjay Pundalik Patil v. Kolhapur Municipal Corporation, through Commissioner and 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

Mrs. Bayakka Mahadeo Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, School Education Dept and Ors.

Fehmidabi Shaikh Aziz Vs Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee NO.1, Kokan Bhavan and Ors.

Shaan Education Society Guardian College of Dental Science and Research Centre, through Presidet Vs Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Ors.

M/s. Chunilal Khumaji and Company and Ors. Vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Boardand Mbr and R

M/s. Chunilal Khumaji and Company and Ors. Vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Boardand Mbr and R

Nenshi Monji and 3 Others. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Others.