Dismissed

Milind Rajaram Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra and 16 Others

Bombay HC14 Jan 2015WP/2924/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Bombay dismissed a writ petition seeking demolition of the 'Exim Link' building. The court refused relief, finding the petitioner acted with vested interest as they failed to purchase commercial premises in the construction and sought to teach the builders a lesson.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner asked for demolition of building 'Exim Link' and recovery of expenses; relief denied.

Milind Rajaram Mahajan Vs State of Maharashtra… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

11.WP2924_2014.doc

¶2

Vidya Amin

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2924 OF 2014

¶5

Milind Rajaram Mahajan … Petitioner vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

¶6

Mr. V.M. Parkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shobha Ajitkumar, Advocate for the respondent nos. 3 and 4/BMC.

¶7

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & C.V. BHADANG, JJ. DATE : 14^th January, 2015.

¶8

P.C.

¶9

By this Petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent nos. 3 to 5/Corporation authorities to implement the notice issued under section 353-A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act and demolish the illegal construction of the building “Exim Link” and recover the expenses for demolition from the respondent nos. 16 and 17 by attaching their personal properties.

¶10

The petitioner claims to have been interested in the purchase of a commercial premises in the building “Exim Link” that was being constructed by the respondent nos. 16 and 17. According to the petitioner, the location of the building was such that it was good for starting the coaching classes and was also suitable for the family

¶11

1 of 3

¶12

11.WP2924_2014.doc

¶13

requirements of the petitioner. The petitioner approached the builder on a number of occasions to strike the deal in respect of the purchase of the premises, however, the petitioner was told that the premises were sold and were not available for sale. According to the petitioner, the say of the builder in regard to the sale of the entire premises was not correct. The petitioner is said to have filed some applications under the Right to Information Act and had also made complaints to the Corporation authorities against the illegal construction of the building. It is the case of the petitioner that the Corporation authorities are not taking any concrete steps in the matter and hence, the petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking the aforesaid relief.

¶14

We are afraid that the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. It is clear that the petitioner was interested in securing commercial premises and residential premises in the building “Exim Link” constructed by the respondent nos. 16 and 17 and since the petitioner could not purchase the said property, the petitioner has filed the instant petition as a arm twisting measure. The petitioner has not only sought the demolition of the building constructed by the respondent nos. 16 and 17 but has also made a prayer that the expenses of the demolition of the building should be recovered from the respondent nos. 16 and 17/builder by attaching their properties. The vengeance with which the petition

¶15

2 of 3

¶16

11.WP2924_2014.doc

¶17

appears to have filed and the prayer appears to have been made, clearly shows that the petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the petitioner was not assigned any property, either commercial or residential in the building constructed by the respondent nos. 16 and 17. We find that complaints are made by the petitioner to the Corporation authorities with vested interest. We also find an averment in the petition that the petitioner has decided to teach the respondent nos. 16 and 17 a lesson. This Court would not be a party in ensuring action against the respondent nos. 16 and 17 at the behest of such a petitioner.

¶18

In the facts of the case, the Writ Petition is dismissed, with no order

¶19

as to costs.

¶20

(C.V. BHADANG, J.)

¶21

(VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)

¶22

3 of 3

Milind Rajaram Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra and 16 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Milind Rajaram Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra and 16 Others

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

Bitcon India Infrastructure Developers (P) Limited Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (Mcgm) and Anr.

Prakash Engineers and Infraprojects (P) Ltd. Vs the Mumbai Municipal Corporation and 2 Others

Smt. Anita Kautikrao Desle Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Higher Education Dept and Ors.

Prakash Ganapat Salvi Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Revenue and Forest and Ors.

Gangaram Atmaram Khambal Vs Vidyamandir High School, through Head Master, Kanakavali and Ors.

Prakash Ganapat Salvi Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Revenue and Forest and Ors.