Disposed

Manish Pravinchandra Shah and Anr. v. Asstt. Engineer (B and F), N Ward and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC14 Jun 2016WP/1182/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition concerning demolition notice under Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The court granted petitioners 15 days to demolish the remaining structure; failure to do so would allow the Corporation to proceed with demolition at the petitioners' cost.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted 15 days to demolish the remaining structure; Corporation may demolish thereafter at petitioners' cost.

Manish Pravinchandra Shah and Anr. Vs Asstt… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

wp 1182.16.doc

¶2

Urmila Ingale

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 1182 OF 2016 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 257 OF 2016

¶6

Shri Manish Pravinchandra Shah and anr. .. Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Asstt.Engineer (B&F), 'N'Ward and ors .. Respondents

¶9

Mr.Kishor Patil a/w Mr.Rajeev Matkar, for the Petitioners. Mr.M.A.Sayed, AGP for Respondent No.3. Ms.Geeta Joglekar, for BMC.

¶10

CORAM : SHANTANU.S.KEMKAR & M.S.KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 14^th JUNE, 2016

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

. Heard the parties through their Counsel. On

¶13

04/03/2016, this Court clarified that the action of demolition

¶14

on the part of the Municipal Corporation on the basis of the

¶15

notice dated 04/08/2010 under Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short 'Act') can be taken

¶16

by the petitioners provided there is no restraint order in respect

¶17

of the said notice by any Court of competent jurisdiction. It is

¶18

1/4

¶19

wp 1182.16.doc

¶20

not in dispute that there is no any restraint order in respect of demolition notice issued under Section 354 of the Act. It is also not the case of the Corporation that the said notice has been withdrawn by it. We have also been informed that about 40% of the structure has already been demolished and the rest of the structure has not been demolished either by the petitioners or by the Corporation as well. In view of the aforesaid, in terms of clause 2 of the notice dated 05/09/2014 – Exhibit 'B' issued by the Municipal Corporation under Section 489(1) of the Act in which it has been categorically stated that if the petitioners fail to comply the said notice within the prescribed time limit, MCGM will be constrained to utilize police force to remove the petitioners from the premises and the said building will be demolished without giving further notice entirely at the risk, cost and consequences of the petitioners. Since we find that the petitioners have not yet demolished the remaining part of the building nor the Corporation has taken any steps in pursuance of the said notice, we dispose of the Petition by giving 15 days time from today to the petitioners to demolish the remaining

¶21

2/4

¶22

wp 1182.16.doc

¶23

structure failing which the Corporation shall demolish the remaining structure of the said building at the risk, cost and consequences of the petitioners. The Corporation shall start the demolition if the petitioners fail to demolish the structure within 15 days, immediately from the 16^th day from today. So far as the rights of the tenants of the building in question are concerned, the same is left open and to be decided in appropriate proceedings, if so advised.

¶24

We have also been informed that since earlier 40% demolition was not carried out by the petitioners as per the requirement of law, notice of stop work was issued to the petitioners. The petitioners will comply with the requirement of demolition and shall take necessary steps as required for the same. We are permitting the petitioners to carry out further demolition within 15 days as already stated, failing which the Corporation to start demolition as stated above from 16^th day. We also record the statement of the petitioners that the entire cost of demolition and removal of debris etc. shall be borne by the petitioners if the Corporation is required to demolish the

¶25

3/4

¶26

wp 1182.16.doc

¶27

structure and petitioners shall deposit the amount as may be quantified by the respondent – Corporation within a week from the day of such demand. The petitioners to file an undertaking before this Court in this regard within a week from today.

¶28

The Petition is disposed of in the above terms. In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, Notice of Motion does not survive and the same is also disposed of accordingly.

¶29

( M.S.KARNIK, J.) (SHANTANU.S.KEMKAR, J.)

¶30

4/4

Manish Pravinchandra Shah and Anr. v. Asstt. Engineer (B and F), N Ward and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Pravinchandra Shah and Anr. v. Asstt. Engineer (B and F), N Ward and 2 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

Shivraj Engineering and Equipment Service Vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Anr.

M/S Manilal Patel Clearing Forwarding Pvt.Ltd Vs the Superintendent of Licence B.M.C. and Anr.

Sanjeevan Naik and 5 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 7 Ors.

Trio Assets Private Limited Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Ashok R Vaidya Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 2 Others

Smt. Jubeda Shabbir Ansari Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 4 Ors.