Disposed

Shri. Jaspal Deepchand Rohra v. Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation, Pimpri, through Commissioner and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Mar 2015WP/2668/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged notices issued under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act without an opportunity of hearing. Relying on a prior order, the High Court directed the Corporation to decide after hearing petitioners while granting liberty to raise prior objections.

What did the court decide?

Corporation directed to take appropriate decision after hearing petitioners. Liberty granted to raise objections from prior petitions.

Shri. Jaspal Deepchand Rohra Vs Pimpri… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

Sherla V.

¶2

wp.2668.2013+_14.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2668 OF 2013

¶5

Shri Jaspal Deepchand Rohra ... Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation & Ors. ... Respondents

¶8

a/w WRIT PETITION NO.2669 OF 2013 a/w CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1349 OF 2013 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2669 OF 2013

¶9

Shri Jagdish Jethanand Vaswani ... Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation & Ors. ... Respondents

¶12

Mr.J.S. Chandnani for the Petitioners Mr.G.H. Keluskar, for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 Mr.Vikas Mali, Assistant Government Pleader, for Resp. No.3

¶13

CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & SHRI C.V. BHADANG, JJ.

¶14

DATE: 3^rd MARCH, 2015

¶15

P.C.:

¶16

Since the issue involved in these petitions is identical, they are heard together and are decided by this common order.

¶17

1 / 3

¶18

wp.2668.2013+_14.doc

¶19

By these petitions, the petitioners challenge the notice issued by the Municipal Corporation under the provisions of section 478(1) and 433(c) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that when similar notices were issued to the petitioners some time in the year 2010, the petitioners had approached this Court in separate Writ Petitions. It is stated that after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the Corporation, this Court had directed the Corporation to take appropriate decision in the matter after considering the objections of the petitioners to the validity of the notice. It is the case of the petitioners that though by a common order dated 25.10.2012 in the Writ Petitions filed by the petitioners, this Court had directed the Municipal Corporation to take appropriate decision after granting an opportunity to the petitioners, the Corporation has neither granted an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners nor has taken a decision in the matter. It is stated that without complying with the order dated 25.10.2012, fresh notices are issued by the Corporation.

¶20

The learned Counsel for the Corporation fairly states on instructions that the petitioners were not granted an opportunity of hearing before the impugned notices were issued. It is stated that the Respondent – Corporation would hear the petitioners and after considering the objections

¶21

2 / 3

¶22

wp.2668.2013+_14.doc

¶23

raised by the petitioners to the impugned notices, an appropriate decision would be taken.

¶24

It is stated on behalf of the petitioners that after the notices impugned in these petitions were issued, the Corporation has during the pendency of the Writ Petitions issued fresh notices seeking the removal of the unauthorised construction.

¶25

In view of the statements made on behalf of the Municipal Corporation, we dispose of the Writ Petitions with a direction to the respondent Corporation to take an appropriate decision in the matter after hearing the petitioners. The petitioners undertake to remain present before the Executive Engineer (Establishment Department) on 25.3.2015 so that notice to the petitioners could be dispensed with. The petitioners shall file their reply to the notices on the date of appearance itself. The petitioners are at liberty to raise the objection to the notices impugned in the earlier petitions and notices and also the notices impugned in these petitions. The order of status quo, as granted by this Court on 15.3.2013 to continue till the matter is decided by the Corporation.

¶26

Order accordingly. No costs.

¶27

(C.V. BHADANG, J.)

¶28

(VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)

¶29

3 / 3

Shri. Jaspal Deepchand Rohra v. Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation, Pimpri, through Commissioner and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Jaspal Deepchand Rohra v. Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation, Pimpri, through Commissioner and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pal Rajendra Education Trusts Pal Rajendra Primary Marathi School Vs the Education Officer R South Ward Office Mcgm and 2 Ors.

Solanki and Associates Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Balaso Annaso Lavate and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary, School and Education Dept. and Ors.

Lilabai Vasant Talekar Vs the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Pune and Ors.

Vaishali Shankarji Dube Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Dept and Ors.

Phalke Niketan Co-Op.Housing Society Ltd. Vs Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai