Disposed

Vasanji Maya Karia v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Jan 2015WP/394/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Writ Petition No. 394 of 2013, the petitioner challenged a notice under Section 53(1) of the MRTP Act. The High Court, noting the petitioner's intent to seek regularization via Section 44, disposed of the petition conditionally. It directed the petitioner to apply within one month; if applied, the authority must decide within three months. No action on the notice is permitted pending the outcom

What did the court decide?

Notice deputed by sorry the petitioner has to make an application under section 44 of the MRTP Act within one month; no further action on the notice till the order is communicated.

Vasanji Maya Karia Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

1 wp394-13

¶2

sas

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.394 OF 2013

¶6

Vasanji Maya Maria ..Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents

¶7

Mr.Pradip R. Kadam for the petitioner. Mr.V.S.Upadhayay, AGP for respondent No.1 – State.

¶8

CORAM : A.S.OKA AND

¶9

A.K. MENON, JJ.

¶10

DATED : 19TH JANUARY, 2015

¶11

P.C. :-

¶12

By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the notice under sub-section (1) of Section 53 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short 'MRTP Act').

¶13

On instructions, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that the petitioner will take recourse to sub-section (3) of Section 53 of the MRTP Act by making an application under section 44 of the MRTP Act.

¶14

In view of this statement, we need not keep the petition pending and dispose of the petition by passing the

¶15

2 wp394-13

¶16

following order:-

¶17

(i) It will be open for the petitioner to make an application under section 44 of the MRTP Act in respect of the structure subject matter of the impugned notice within a period of one month from today;

¶18

(ii) If such an application is made, the concerned authority of the second respondent Municipal Corporation shall pass appropriate order thereon within a period of three months from the date on which such application is made. The order passed on the said application to be communicated to the petitioner or the Architect of the petitioner;

¶19

(iii) Till the date of communication of the order passed on the application to the petitioner or his Architect, whichever is earlier, no further action shall be taken on the basis of the impugned notice subject to condition that even the petitioner shall maintain status quo as of today in respect of the structure subject matter of the notice;

¶20

(iv) On the failure on the part of the petitioner to make such an application within a period of one month from today, the protection granted as above, shall not apply after the expiry of period of one month and it will be open to the respondents to take action according to law on the basis of the impugned notice;

¶21

3 wp394-13

¶22

(v) If the order passed on such application be adverse to the petitioner, we direct that the protection granted as above shall continue to operate for a period of one month from the date on which the order is served upon the petitioner or his Architect, whichever is earlier.

¶23

(vi) We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the merits of the application for regularisation;

¶24

(vii) All contentions are kept open;

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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

Vasanji Maya Karia v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasanji Maya Karia v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Pancard Clubs Limited and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pancard Clubs Limited and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Tukaram Sudhakar Zaware Vs Sangeeta Tukaram Zaware

Saiprasad Mangesh Kalyankar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Pandurang Sadashiv Bapat Vs Chiplun Nagar Parishad through Its Chief Officer and Ors.

Landlord Kanchan Madhhusudan Vs Assistant Engineer (D-Ward), Bldg and Factory Junior Engineer Sachin Yadav