Allowed a writ petition regarding an unauthorized structure erected by the Petitioner. Directed the Respondent Corporation to decide a pending regularization application and maintain status quo pending that decision.
Respondent Corporation directed to decide regularization application; status quo maintained pending decision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
14wpl1577-14.sxw
spb/
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L.) NO. 1577 OF 2014 WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS (ST.)NO. 190 OF 2014 IN W.P.(L.) NO. 1577 OF 2014
M/s. Dadar Motor Works … Petitioner.
V/s.
The Assistant Commissioner, MCGM & Ors. … Respondents.
And
Mr. Shehab Sultan Bohra ... Applicant/Intervener (In CHSWST No.190/2014)
Mr. Sanjiv A. Sawant for the Petitioner.
Mr. A. Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate a/w. Ms. Shobha Ajitkumar for the MCGM.
Mr. K.P.Tiwari for the Applicant/Intervener in CHSWST No.190/2014)
CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND A. P. BHANGALE, JJ.
DATE : 01 DECEMBER, 2014 P.C. :
1 Heard. Perused the petition alongwith the record.
1/3
Borey
spb/
14wpl1577-14.sxw
2 The Petitioner herein had filed a writ petition no. 1839 of 2012 on the identical issues that are raised in the present petition. On a prayer of the Petitioner, that petition was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty, by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: Anoop V. Mohta & M.S.Sonak,JJ.) by order dated 14th March, 2014. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that this present petition is also required to be disposed of in the light of the said order.
3 Learned counsel for the Corporation submits that the Petitioner is in possession of the subject structure which is not an authorized structure. However, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner had made an application on 16th June, 2010 for regularization of the subject structure but the corporation has so far not taken a decision. The learned senior counsel for the Corporation on instructions submits that the application for regularization will be dealt with in accordance with the law.
4 Without expressing any opinion on merits, we direct the Respondent-Corporation to decide the application filed by the Petitioner and communicate its decision to the Petitioner. In case the decision is adverse to the Petitioner, the decision / order shall not be given effect to for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the decision by the Petitioner.
2/3
Borey
spb/
14wpl1577-14.sxw
5 Till the decision of the Corporation and the receipt of the decision by the Petitioner, the order of status-quo granted earlier, shall remain in force.
7 In view of the disposal of the petition itself, the Chamber summons is also disposed of.
8 Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.
(A.P.BHANGALE, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL,J.)
3/3
Borey
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Municipal Corporation should decide the Petitioner's application for regularization of an unauthorized structure.
Whether an order of status-quo should remain in force pending the Corporation's decision.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Writ Petition No. 1839 of 2012Referred¶2
M/s. Dadar Motor Works
The Assistant Commissioner, MCGM & Ors.
Naresh H. Patil
A. P. Bhangale
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
