Disposed

Farida Pestonji Raja v. Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Bombay HC13 Feb 2015WP/2028/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought regularization of a structure. Court accepted counsel statement to dispose of petition by directing petitioner to file an application within one month and fixing the schedule for its consideration by the Municipal Corporation.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to file regularization application within one month; specified decision timeline for respondents; continued ad-interim relief conditionally.

Farida Pestonji Raja Vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

1 wp2028-14

¶2

sas

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.2028 OF 2014

¶6

Farida Pestonji Raja ..Petitioner. V/s. Mumbai Municipal Corporation & Anr. ..Respondents.

¶7

Mr.Pradeep J. Thorat for the petitioner. Ms.K.R.Punjabi for respondent-BMC.

¶8

CORAM : A.S.OKA AND

¶9

A.K. MENON, JJ.

¶10

DATED : 13TH FEBRUARY, 2015

¶11

P.C. :-

¶12

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner will make an application for regularization of the structure – subject matter of the notice dated 25^th January, 2014 within a period of one month from today. We accept the said statement. In view of the said statement, the petition is disposed of by passing the following order:-

¶13

(i) If the petitioner makes an application for regularization of the structure in question within a period of one month from today through a licensed Architect, the same shall be decided by the first respondent Municipal Corporation within a period of three months from the date of filing of the application;

¶14

(ii) The order passed on the application be communicated by the first respondent either to the petitioner or to her licensed

¶15

2 wp2028-14

¶16

Architect;

¶17

(iii) Ad-interim relief granted by this Court on 24^th June, 2014 will continue to operate till the date of communication of the order passed on the application to the petitioner or to the licensed Architect, whichever is earlier;

¶18

(iv) If the order be adverse to the petitioner, the ad-interim relief will continue to operate for a period of one month from the date on which the order is served to the petitioner or to the licensed Architect, whichever is earlier;

¶19

(v) If the petitioner fails to apply for regularization of the structure within a period of one month from today, the protection granted shall cease to operate and on expiry of the period of one month from today, it will be open for the respondents to take action on the basis of the impugned notice;

¶20

(vi) We make it clear that we have not adjudicated upon the merits of the application for regularization which may be made by the petitioner;

¶21

(viii) The petition is disposed of in the above terms;

¶22

(ix) All parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶23

(A.K.MENON, J.) (A.S.OKA, J.)

Farida Pestonji Raja v. Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Farida Pestonji Raja v. Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Anr.

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

High Court on Its Own Motion Vs State of Maharashtra and 8 Ors.and Ruju R Thakker(Applicant)

Dinesh Shetty and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and 5 Others

Shri. Sachin Vinayak Mane Vs Pandharpur Municipal Council, through Its Chief Officer

Sumaiya Ahmed Sakhani Vs Mumbai Muncipal Corporation and 5 Ors.

Sachin Prabhakar Bhor Vs the Election Officer, Zilla Parishad / Panchayat Samit Election 2012 and Ors.

Prakash Babasaheb Pawar Vs the Election Officer, Zilla Parishad / Panchayat Samit Election 2012 and Ors.