Dismissed

Shri. Ajay Laxmipati Dasari v. Solapur Municipal Corporation, through Commissioner and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Jun 2014WP/11658/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner unconditionally withdrew a writ petition regarding a demolition notice under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act. Court accepted withdrawal, allowed an application for regularization within six weeks, and extended ad-interim relief conditionally upon timely application.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty granted to apply for regularization within six weeks. Ad-interim relief extended conditionally.

Shri. Ajay Laxmipati Dasari Vs Solapur Municipal… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2014)

40-wp-11658-13

Ladda

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.11658 of 2013

¶6

Ajay Laxmipati Dasari … Petitioner.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Solapur Municipal Corporation & others … Respondents.

¶9

Mr T.D. Deshmukh for the Petitioner. Mr V.S.Gokhale, AGP for the respondent No.6. Mr P.G.Sarda for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

¶10

CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.S.CHANDURKAR, JJ. DATE : 17^th June, 2014.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

Heard learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. On instructions of

¶13

the Petitioner, he seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to make an appropriate application for regularization of the construction, subjectmatter of the impugned notice under section 260 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (for short “the said Act”). He submits that till the disposal of the application and for a limited period, the adinterim relief granted earlier be extended. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents opposed to the said prayer by pointing out that the Petitioner has indulged in fabrication of the record.

1 of 3

40-wp-11658-13

The Petitioner is unconditionally withdrawing the Petition. Therefore, the action under Section 260 of the said Act will become final. Moreover, there is no speaking order passed on the basis of the notice under section 260 of the said Act. Therefore, the prayer made by the Petitioner deserves to be accepted. Accordingly, we pass the following order:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

(a) The petition is dismissed as withdrawn;

¶20

(b) It will be open for the Petitioner to apply for regularization of the structure described in the impugned notice under Section 260 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949;

¶21

(c) If such application in prescribed format is made by the Petitioner within a period of six weeks from today, same shall be decided by the Corporation within a period of twomonths from the date of filing the application;

¶22

(d) Adinterim relief granted by this Court on 11th December, 2013 shall continue to operate till the date of communication of the order passed on the application made by the Petitioner to the Petitioner or to his licenced Architect.

¶23

If the order passed on the said application be adverse to the Petitioner, the adinterim relief shall continue to operate for a

2 of 3

40-wp-11658-13

period of three weeks from the date of communication of the adverse order to the Petitioner;

¶28

(e) We make it clear that if the Petitioner fails to apply for regularization within the stipulated period of six weeks, the protection granted to the petitioner as above shall cease to operate on expiry of the period of six weeks. Thereafter, it will be open for the Solapur Municipal Corporation to take action of demolition in accordance with law;

¶29

We make it clear that we have not made any adjudication on the entitlement of the Petitioner to obtain regularization of the alleged offending structure and all contentions of the parties in that behalf are kept open;

¶30

(f) The Petition is disposed of on above terms;

¶31

(g) All concerned to act upon an authenticated copy

¶32

of this order.

¶33

(A.S.CHANDURKAR, J) ( A.S. OKA, J )

¶34

3 of 3

Shri. Ajay Laxmipati Dasari v. Solapur Municipal Corporation, through Commissioner and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Ajay Laxmipati Dasari v. Solapur 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

Shri. Vasudeo Narhari Dhage Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Urban Development and Ors.

Shri. Narhari Ganpati Dhage Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Urban Development and Ors.

Akhil Maharashtra Manav Hakka Adhikar Sangharsha Samitee, Upsamiti Sawantwadi, through President. Vs Public Information Officer , Dist. Supply Officer Sinddudurg, Ors.

Vijay Gopal Tendolkar Vs 1. Zilla Parishad, Sindhudurg and Ors.

State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs Ibrahim Fakirsaheb Nalband and Ors.

Smt. Rukminibai Laxmipati Dasari Vs Solapur Municipal Corporation, through Commissioner and Ors.