Dismissed

Ms. Maria D'Sa v. Mapusa Municipal Council through Its Chief Officr and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC3 Jan 2013WP/791/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order revoking electricity connections granted to respondents occupying her structure. The Court held that mere occupation entitles a connection under the Goa Public Health Act and that rights disputes remain unaffected by such release. The petition was rejected with a direction to file objections if any. The order was disposed of without interference.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was rejected. The petitioner was directed to file necessary objections before the respondent no.1 if not already done.

Ms. Maria D'Sa Vs Mapusa Municipal… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO. 791 OF 2012

¶3

MS. MARIA D'SA Versus MAPUSA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL THROUGH ITS CHIEF OFFICR AND 2 ORS.,

¶4

... Petitioner

¶5

... Respondents

¶6

Shri G. Agni, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶7

Coram:F. M. REIS &

¶8

U. V. BAKRE, JJ.

¶9

Date:3rd January, 2013

¶10

ORAL ORDER:

¶11

Heard Shri G. Agni, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶12

The above petition seeks to quash and set aside the order dated 2/07/2012 bearing no.MMC/ENGG/3727/2012 passed by the respondent no.1 and revoking the electricity connection to the respondents no.2 & 3.

¶13

Shri G. Agni, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that there is a dispute with regard to the alleged occupation of the disputed structure by the respondents no.2 & 3 who are claiming to be the mundkars of the suit premises. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the said respondents have committed a fraud inasmuch as they have disclosed a wrong house number as well as wrong survey number in respect of the disputed structure and have obtained electricity connection. The learned Counsel further pointed out that such fraudulent release of electricity connection by the respondent no.1 to the respondents no.2 & 3 would gravely jeopardize the defence of the petitioner before the concerned

¶14

¶15

Authorities where the rights claimed by the respondents no.2 & 3 are under adjudication. The learned Counsel has taken us through the records and pointed out that respondents no.2 & 3 have deliberately represented a wrong survey number as well as house number whilst applying for such electricity connection. The learned Counsel, as such, submits that the impugned order passed by the respondent no.1 deserves to be quashed and set aside.

¶16

We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. We have also gone through the records. On perusal of the records, we find that the electricity connection has been released in terms of the provisions of Goa, Daman and Diu Public Health Act, 1985 (as amended). In such cases, mere occupation of the premises entitles a person to obtain such connection. Shri G. Agni, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in fact does not dispute that the respondents no.2 & 3 are occupying the disputed structure as caretaker/servant but points out that such occupation by respondents no.2 & 3 is illegal as admittedly the structure belongs to the petitioner. This aspect in any event cannot be decided in this Writ Petition. In fact on perusal of the impugned order dated 2/07/2012 we find that the said order has been passed inter alia for maintaining and improving the public health in terms of the provisions of Section 94 (A) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Public Health Act, 1985 (as amended). Subsection 4 of Section 94(A) of the said Act inter alia clearly provides that any dispute including the legality or illegality of the structure shall remain unaffected and shall not prejudice any person in any way whatsoever, with such release of electricity.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the provisions of Section 94(A) of the Goa, Daman & Diu Public

¶18

¶19

Health Act, 1985 (as amended), we find no case is made out for any interference in the impugned order. But however, Shri G. Agni, learned Counsel points out that the petitioner shall file necessary objections before the respondent no.1 in connection with such release of electricity connection in favour of the respondents no.2 & 3. In case any such objection is made by the petitioner or is pending before the respondent no.1 the same shall be dealt with by the respondent no.1 in accordance with law.

¶20

Subject to the above, the petition stands rejected.

¶21

F. M. REIS, J.

¶22

U. V. BAKRE, J.

¶23

Ms. Maria D'Sa v. Mapusa Municipal Council through Its Chief Officr and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms. Maria D'Sa v. Mapusa Municipal Council through Its Chief Officr and 2 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

M/S. Teracom Ltd. Rep. by Its Chief Operating Officer Mr. Ashish D. Jain Vs M/S. Sojitz Corporation Rep. by Mr. Masahiro Ota

M/S. Teracom Ltd. Rep. by Its Chief Operating Officer Mr. Ashish D. Jain Vs M/S. Sojitz Corporation Rep. by Mr. Masahiro Ota

Mrs. Vanashree Fatu Kenkre and 2 Ors., Vs Dr. Sricrishna Balchandre Kenkre (Deceased) through Lr'S and Ors.

The Executive Engineer Works Division VII Vs Shri Saunsthan Devkikrishna Ravalnath

Dempo Properties and Investments Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Director Laxminarayan v. Dempo Vs Dy. Director of Panchayats and 2 Ors.

Smt.E.S.S. Almeida, Donapaula-Goa. Vs the Director General,(Csir) and Anr.