Disposed

Pankaj Rach and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and 2 Other

Bombay HC9 Oct 2015WP/2609/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Courts permitted petitioners who admitted unauthorized work to apply for regularization. Petition granted stay on impugned notice pending regularization application, with timelines for Municipal Corporation's decision.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners permitted to apply for regularization within one month; stay on impugned notice pending regularization application and subsequent Municipal Corporation order.

Pankaj Rach and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and 2… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2015)

oswpl2923

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.2923 OF 2015

¶5

Pankaj Rach & Ors. ...Petitioners
vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

¶6

Mr.Vishal Kanade a/w Ranjeev Carvelho i/b Sanjay
Gawade for Petitioner
Mr.Amit Shastri, AGP for the respondent No.1
Ms Shobha Ajitkumar for BMC.

¶7

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 V.L.ACHLIYA,JJ.

¶8

 DATE : OCTOBER 9, 2015

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

. Not on board. Taken on board.

¶11

1Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,
the learned AGP for the first respondent and the
learned counsel for the Mumbai Municipal
Corporation. The learned counsel for the
petitioners on instructions states that the
petitioners will apply for regularization of the
offending work subject matter of the final
order/notice dated 7th October 2015 which is impugned
in this petition.

¶12

2As the petitioners have stated that they want
to apply for regularization, it is obvious that the
petitioners admit that the work subject matter of
the impugned notice has been carried out without any

¶13

2 oswpl2923

¶14

authorization. Considering the nature of work
subject matter of the final order/notice, we permit
the petitioners to apply for regularization.

¶15

3Accordingly, we pass the following order:

¶16

(I)It will be open for the petitioners to
apply for regularization of the work subject
matter of the impugned notice dated 7th October
2015 within a period of one month from today by
making an application in a prescribed format
through their licensed Architect;

¶17

(II)If such application is made within
stipulated period of one month, the Municipal
Corporation will decide the same within a
period of 60 days from the date of Application;

¶18

(III)Order passed on the application for
regularizationbecommunicatedtothe
petitioners or to their licensed Architect;

¶19

(IV)Till the date of communication of the order
to the petitioners or to their licensed
Architect whichever is earlier, the order dated
7th October 2015 shall not be implemented;

¶20

(V)If the said order be adverse to the
petitioners, the order dated 7th October 2015
shall not be implemented for a period of one
month from the date on which the order is
served to the petitioners or to their licensed
Architect, whichever is earlier;

¶21

(VI) On the failure of the petitioners to apply for regularization within one month from today, it will be open for the Mumbai Municipal

¶22

3 oswpl2923

¶23

Corporation to take action in terms of the
order dated 7th October 2015;

¶24

(VII)All contentions of the parties on merits of
the application for regularization are kept
open.

¶25

(VIII)Writ Petition is disposed of on above
terms.

¶26

(V.L.ACHLIYA,J.)

Pankaj Rach and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and 2 Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Rach and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and 2 Other

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

Shri. Parmeshwar Chandrasa Kumbhar Vs the Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum, New Delhi and Ors.

Saroj Babubhai Kapadiya and Ors. Vs Nashik Muncipal Corporation and Ors.

Nandvijay C.H.S. Ltd. Vs the Administrator Nandvijay C.H.S. Ltd., and Ors.

Anil Raut and 7 Others Vs D N Nagar Mamta Co-Operative Hsg Ltd. and 5 Others

Kamla Real Estate Hub Private Ltd. Vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Addvision Outdoor Advertising Agency, through Partner, Sangram Chandrakant Dubal Vs the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Pandharpur and Ors.