The High Court of Bombay dismissed a writ petition challenging a notice under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 regarding a demolished building, declining to entertain the matter under Article 226.
Petition not entertained under Article 226; remedies against respondents kept open.
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.
oswp2333
1
ssp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2333 OF 2014
Jayshree D/o Hasmukhlal Adalja ...Petitioner
vs.
The State of Maharashtra
and others...Respondents
Mr.Sushil Upadhye i/b Ashok Saraogi for the
Petitioner
Mr.Rajiv Mane, AGP for State
Mr.Ashutosh Kaushik i/b Kaushik & Co. the respondent
Nos.3 and 4
Mr.H.C.Pimple for BMC.
CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
C.V.BHADANG, JJ.
DATE : MAY 5, 2015
P.C.:
1The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3
and 4 states that except for a small portion of the
building in question, entire building has been
demolished. Even the order dated 16th May 2014
passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Vacation
records the statement of an Officer of the Mumbai
Municipal Corporation that 75% of the structure has
been demolished. Therefore, no relief can be
granted in this petition as regards the notice under
section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation
Act,1888. The petitioner is free to prosecute the
remedies against the respondent Nos.3 and 4. The
respondent No.3, even according to the petitioner,
is the owner of the building and the respondent No.4
2 oswp2333
is the developer appointed by the respondent No.3.
2Therefore, we decline to entertain this
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. However, the remedies available, if any, to
the petitioner against the respondent Nos.3 and 4
are kept open. The petition is disposed of.
(C.V.BHADANG,J.)(A.S.OKA,J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging a notice under section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 should be entertained.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jayshree D/o Hasmukhlal Adalja
The State of Maharashtra
Respondent Nos.3 and 4
A.S.OKA
C.V.BHADANG
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court