Disposed

Mr. Ramesh Z. Mota and 18 Others v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 3 Others

Bombay HC1 Aug 2014WP/1881/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-paragraph order disposed of a writ petition regarding a building's structural condition. The court directed the Respondent Corporation to decide via the Technical Advisory Committee and granted interim protection pending their decision.

What did the court decide?

Directing Respondent Corporation/TAC to decide; interim protection granted until communication of decision; Rule discharged.

Mr. Ramesh Z. Mota and 18 Others Vs the Municipal… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

904 wpl 1550.14 os.doc

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION (L) NO.1550 OF 2014

¶5

Mr. Ramesh Z. Mota & Ors. ... Petitioners.

¶6

V/s.

¶7

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. ... Respondents.

¶8

Mr. J.S. Kini i/b Mr. Suresh Dubey for the Petitioners. Mr. Sheela Tambe for Respondent MCGM.

¶9

CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 1, 2014.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

1 Rule returnable forthwith.

¶12

2 Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents waive notice.

¶13

3 By consent, heard finally.

¶14

4 There are conflicting engineering reports about the structure condition of the building in question. Therefore, in view of the order dated 23 June 2014 passed in Writ Petition (L) No.1135 of 2014 (Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ), we are inclined to dispose of this Petition. The Respondent

¶15

1/2

¶16

904 wpl 1550.14 os.doc

¶17

¶18

Corporation/Technical Advisory committee (TAC) to take decision at the earliest, in view of the observations already made in the said order.

¶19

5 Parties are at liberty to file documents in support of their contention to the TAC. The statement is made by the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Corporation that there is a hospital behind the premises in question about 15 feet away. Therefore, the occupation, if any, in view of above shall be at the risk and consequences of occupants. The parties to take necessary safety measures including propping and barricades.

¶20

6 Interim protection granted by this Court on 13 June 2014 to continue till the communication of the decision/order of TAC and for a period of one week from the date of communication of the decision/order of TAC if the said decision/order is adverse to the Petitioner.

¶21

7 Subject to the above, Rule is discharged. The Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶22

(A.A. SAYED, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

¶23

katkam

¶24

2/2

Mr. Ramesh Z. Mota and 18 Others v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Ramesh Z. Mota and 18 Others v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lachman Bhagoomal and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Geeta Prabhakar Nagapure Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. and Ors.

Diksha Rajiv Walke Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Social Justice and Special Assistant and Anr.

Chintan Mahesh Parmar Vs Mumbai University, through Registrar and Ors.

Nasik Institute of Technology and Anr. Vs Directorate of Technical Education, Maharashtra State and Ors.

Japaul Oil and Maritime Services Plc and Another Vs Union of India and 3 Others