Disposed

Nadeem Abdul Latif Qureshi v. the Municipal Commissioner of Gr.Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC7 Apr 2015WP/1131/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerned the petitioner's inability to comply with a repair notice due to lack of police protection. The High Court directed the Corporation to extend the notice period by 30 days and ordered the Police to provide necessary protection for the petitioner to carry out the work.

What did the court decide?

Extension of notice period by 30 days and direction to grant necessary police protection to the petitioner.

Nadeem Abdul Latif Qureshi Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

ASN

¶2

1/3

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION (L) NO.825 OF 2015

¶5

Nadeem Abdul Latif Qureshi. vs.

¶6

...Petitioner.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Respondents.

¶8

Ms.Ratna Jaiswal for the Petitioner. Mr. Vinod Mahadik for the Respondent BMC.

¶9

CORAM : A.S.OKA AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 07^th April, 2015

¶11

PC:

¶12

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶13

Time was granted on 25 March 2015 to the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents to take instructions. The learned counsel for the respondents states that he has not received instructions and therefore, he may be granted time. Considering the urgency involved, time cannot be granted.

¶14

On application made by the petitioner on 18 December 2014 a notice was issued by the 1st respondent-Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai under Clause(a) of sub section(1) of Section-381 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act,1888 requiring the petitioner to

¶15

ASN

¶16

2/3

¶17

carry out the repairs to the drainage system and clean the pipes. The grievance made by the petitioner to the Health Officer respondent No.3 by a letter dated 27 November 2014 was that the dirty water is flowing all over the area and entering into her residential premises.

¶18

On 9 January 2015, the petitioner addressed a letter to Senior Inspector of Police of Amboli Police Station requesting the police to grant protection for the purpose of implementing the notice dated 18 December 2014. On 14 January 2015, the petitioner communicated to the Assistant Commissioner of the 1st respondent that he has sought police protection. The grievance in the petition is that as the police protection was not granted to the petitioner, he could not act upon the said notice and carry out the work. 5) By Advocate's letter dated 27 February 2015, the petitioner requested the 1^st respondent to extend the period of notice dated 18 December 2014. 6) After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents, we find that there is no impediment in the way of extending the period provided in the notice dated 18 December 2015. The period will have to be extended unless the notice dated 18 December 2014 has been challenged by any third party. As of today there is prohibitory order passed by any competent Court preventing the petitioner from acting upon the said notice.

¶19

ASN

¶20

3/3

¶21

Necessary police protection will have to be granted to the petitioner for carrying out the work in terms of the notice dated 18 December, 2014. Hence, we dispose of the petition by passing the following order:-

¶22

a) We direct the 2^nd respondent to issue a formal communication to the petitioner extending the period provided in notice dated 18 December 2015 (Exhibit-D to the petition) by further period of 30 days from the date of issue of the said communication;

¶23

b) On application being made by the petitioner to the Senior Inspector of Police of Amboli Police Station, Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai necessary and adequate police protection shall be granted to the petitioner only for the purpose of implementing the requisitions set out in the notice dated 18 December 2014;

¶24

c) The 2nd respondent as well as Senior Inspector of Police of Amboli Police Station to act on an authenticated copy of this order which may be produced by the petitioner.

¶25

We make it clear that we have made no adjudication as regards the right to property claimed by the petitioner

¶26

The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶27

(A.P. BHANGALE, J.)

Nadeem Abdul Latif Qureshi v. the Municipal Commissioner of Gr.Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nadeem Abdul Latif Qureshi v. the Municipal Commissioner of Gr.Mumbai 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

Girija Gokul Mohan Vs Ad Collector, Nashik and Ors.

Mrs. Namita Herwadkar Nee Ms. Namita Vasant Satoskar Vs Aniruddha Herwadkar

Baburao Dhondiba Kaudre-Gurav (Since Deceased) through Legal Heirs Dharmendra B. Kaudre-Gurav Vs Sourabh Rao, Collector, Pune

Damodardas Bhaidas Bhuta andORS Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shambhu Sharan Saxena Vs the Bombay Municipal Corporation and Ors.

S.R. Dantal Builders and Promoters Vs Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and 2 Ors.