Ranjan M Patel Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, through Commissioner and Another

oswp1186

1

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1186 OF 2015

¶5

Ms Ranjan M. Patel
vs.
Municipal Corporation of
Greater Mumbai & Anr.

¶6

...Petitioner

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

Mr.Nitin Parkha i/b Arun Panickar for the Petitioner
Ms Shobha Ajitkumar for the BMC

¶9

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 C.V.BHADANG,JJ.

¶10

 DATE : JANUARY 11, 2016

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

1Rule. The learned counsel for the respondents
waive service. Forthwith taken up for final
disposal. The substantive challenge in this
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India is to the communication dated 1st April 2015
(Exhibit-A to the petition).

¶13

2On 19th March 2015, the Architect appointed by
thepetitionersubmittedaproposalfor
redevelopment of the property subject matter of this
petition on the basis of the Judgment and Order
dated 17th February 2015 passed by this Court in Writ
Petition No.2035 of 2014( Orbit Corporation Limited
and another vs. Union of India and others). By the
impugned communication dated 1st April 2015, the said
proposal has been rejected. In the said impugned
communication addressed to the Architect of the

¶14

oswp1186

¶15

2

¶16

petitioner, an Officer of the respondent No.1 has
stated thus:

¶17

“With reference to your above referred letter
this is to inform you that the bldg
comprising of Gr+1 floor was declared
dilapidated and unsafe on 1.10.2013 i.e after
prescribing datre line of 6.1.2011 and
proposal could not be processed as per DCR
1991. Further the court order dated
17.2.2015 in W.P.No.2035 of 2014 can not be
made applicable as the MCGM is not
respondent.”

¶18

(Underline added)

¶19

2The learned counsel for the respondent No.1
-Mumbai Municipal Corporation submits that she is
not sure whether a modified notification has been
issued in terms of the Judgment and order of this
Court dated 17th February 2015.

¶20

3If it is the case of the Municipal Corporation
that a modified notification has been issued, the
same could have been taken into consideration while
considering the proposal of the petitioner.
However, the proposal could not have been rejected
on the ground that the Municipal Corporation was not
a party to the writ petition in which the Judgment
and Order dated 17th February 2015 was passed by this
Court.

¶21

3 oswp1186

¶22

4By the said Judgment and order dated 17th
February 2015, corrigendum dated 29th March 2011
issued to the notification dated 6th January 2011 was
held as illegal. However, liberty was granted to
the Central Government to modify the notification
dated 6th January 2011.

¶23

5Apart from the contention that the Mumbai
Municipal Corporation was very much a party to the
Writ Petition No.2035 of 2014, in any event, the
Municipal Corporation was bound by the Judgment and
order dated 17th February 2015.

¶24

6Hence, we pass the following order:

¶25

(I)The impugned communication dated 1st April
2015 is hereby set aside;

¶26

(II)We direct the appropriate Officer of the
respondent No.1 to consider the proposal dated
19th March 2015 submitted by the petitioner's
Architect in the light of the Judgment and
order dated 17th February 2015 in Writ Petition
No.2035 of 2014;

¶27

(III)Needless to record that if the Coastal
Regulation Zone notification dated 6th January
2011 has been modified by the Central
Government in terms of the liberty granted by
this Court under the Judgment and order dated
17thFebruary 2015, while considering the
proposal submitted by the petitioner's
Architect, the modification will have to be
taken into consideration in accordance with

¶28

4 oswp1186

¶29

law;

¶30

(IV) Fresh decision shall be taken on the proposal dated 19^th March 2013 within two months from today;

¶31

(V) Rule is partly made absolute on above terms;

¶32

(VI) There will be no order as to costs.

¶33

(C.V.BHADANG,J.) (A.S.OKA,J.)

Ranjan M Patel v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, through Commissioner and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjan M Patel v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, through Commissioner and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rashtriya Ekta Hawkers Union Vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Kamlakar Rama Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mr. Sagar Shivajirao Jondhale Vs Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Shri. Mansingh Genu Roman and Ors. Vs the Collector, Satara and Ors.

Shri. Suresh Maruti Kamble (Decd) through Lr. Smt. Janabai Kamble Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pandurang Vitthal Kumbhar and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.