Allowed

Navinchandra J. Gandhi through Poa Shri. Rajesh Batukbhai Dave v. the Union of India, through Director, Ministry of Environment and Forests and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Sept 2014CAW/2233/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court discharged a clarification that the petitioner’s undertaking restricting use of the second floor of Gandhi Bhavan did not preclude him from carrying out essential repairs on the sealed terrace and second floor to prevent water leakage, directing the Municipal Council to permit such repairs.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 11 February 2013 is clarified to permit the petitioner to carry out repairs on the terrace and second floor of Gandhi Bhavan despite the undertaking against using the second floor.

Navinchandra J. Gandhi through Poa Shri… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2014)

dssherla

17-caw-2233 -14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2233 OF 2014 IN

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.6733 OF 2012

¶8

Navinchandra B. Gandhi	.. Applicant
	(org. Petitioner)
vs.
The Union of India and ors.	.. Respondents
	(org. Respondents)

¶9

Mr. R.Z. Moray a/w.Mr. Amit Sale for Petitioner. Mr. N.D. Sharma for Respondent No.1-UOI Mr. S.S. Deshmukh for Respondent Nos.2 & 4. Mr. Vinod Joshi for Respondent No.5.

¶10

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & M.S.SONAK, J. DATE : 23 SEPTEMBER 2014

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

This civil application has been taken out by the applicant-original petitioner for clarification/modification of the order dated 11 February 2013 in the main writ petition.

¶13

2] The respondent-Municipal Council, Diu had raised an objection about the legality of the construction on the second floor of the building called “ Gandhi Bhavan" in Diu. Hence, while admitting the main petition, we have directed that upon the petitioner filing an undertaking on affidavit, stating that the petitioner shall not use the newly constructed second floor of the

¶14

1 of 3

¶15

dssherla 2 17-caw-2233 -14

¶16

building known as “ Gandhi Bhavan ” without getting permission/approval from the Diu Municipal Council, the respondents shall not interfere with the petitioner's carrying on business of running a hotel on the ground floor and first floor of the said building.

¶17

3] The doubt about the petitioner's entitlement to construct the second floor on the building had arisen in Diu, CRZ classification. The area where the petitioner's property is situated, was originally placed in CRZ-III category and the petitioner had made a representation before the authorities to change the classification of the area from CRZ-III category to CRZ-II category.

¶18

4] Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner's representation is at the final stage of consideration. But in the meantime, the hardship being pointed out by the petitioner is that since the second floor of the building is sealed by the Municipal Council, the Petitioner is not even in a position to carry out repairs on the terrace as well as on the second floor and therefore, there is leakage of water from the terrace and second floor down percolating into first floor and ground floor.

¶19

5] Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that since the petitioner's undertaking is only not to use the second floor of the building in question for any purposes without getting permission/approval from Diu Municipal Council, no harm or prejudice will be caused to the respondents

¶20

2 of 3

¶21

dssherla 3 17-caw-2233 -14

¶22

by the original petitioner carrying out necessary repairs on the terrace as well as on second floor of the said building in Diu.

¶23

6] Accordingly, it is clarified that the order dated 11 February 2013 or the petitioner's undertaking shall not come in the way of the petitioner while carrying out repairs on the terrace as well as on the second floor of the building, i.e., “ Gandhi Bhavan ”. The Diu, Municipal Council shall permit the petitioner to carry out such repairs.

¶24

7] The Civil Application is disposed of in terms of the above clarification and direction.

¶25

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶26

(M.S.SONAK, J.)

¶27

3 of 3

Navinchandra J. Gandhi through Poa Shri. Rajesh Batukbhai Dave v. the Union of India, through Director, Ministry of Environment and Forests and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Navinchandra J. Gandhi through Poa Shri. Rajesh Batukbhai Dave v. the Union of India, through Director, Ministry of Environment and Forests and Ors.

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

Rakesh S Kathotia and Anr. Vs Milton Global Ltd. and 14 Ors.

Priya Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Collector of Mumbai City,Old Customs House and 3 Ors.

Smt. Fergi Farookh Nargoliwalla and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Revenue and Ors.

Shantilal J. Shah and 2 Ors. Vs Jitendra Sanghavi and 3 Ors.

Shahnaz Jahan Saeed and Anr. Vs Union of India, through Joint Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs (Haj Cell) and Ors.

Goldmines Telefilms Pvt. Ltd. Vs Reliance Big Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.