In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Section 217(5) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The bench found no grounds for such challenge and relied on previous decisions upholding the same section, dismissing the petition.
Rule is discharged. Interim order is vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
203-wp-1295-04
dss
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1295 OF 2004
M/s. G.L. Hotel
... Petitioner
Vs.
Municipal Commissioner of Brihanmumbai & Ors. ... Respondents
None for both the parties.
CORAM : V. M. KANADE, AND M. S. SONAK, JJ.
DATE : JULY 26, 2016. P. C.
1] On 24 March 2004, Rule was issued in this petition, only on the question of validity of Section 217 (5) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (said Act). In the petition, as originally instituted, there was no challenge to any of the provisions contained in Section 217 of the said Act. However, by way of amendment, the petitioner has challenged Sections 217(2) (d) and Section 217 (5) of the said Act. As noticed earlier, Rule was however, granted only on the question of validity of Section 217 (5) of the said Act.
1 / 2
203-wp-1295-04
2] The Division Bench of this Court, in case of Peninsyla Land Ltd. V/s. Brihan Mumbai Mahanagarpalika & ors. - 2009 (2) Bom. C. R. 806, has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 217(5) of the said Act. Similarly, learned Single Judge of this Court in case of Elora Construction Co. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay – AIR 1980 Bom. 162, has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 217(2)(d) of the said Act. The decision in case of Elora Construction Co. (supra), was in fact noted with approval by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Gujarat Agro Industries Co. Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad & ors. - (1999 ) 4 SCC 468.
3] We have, in the absence of learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the grounds raised in the petition, including the grounds introduced by way of amendment. We find that no grounds have been raised to attack the constitutional validity of Section 217(5) of the said Act. In any case, now that the constitutional validity of Section 217 (5) of the said Act has already been upheld by this Court in case of Peninsyla Land Ltd. (supra), this petition is required to be dismissed. Accordingly, we dismiss this petition. Rule is discharged. Interim order is vacated.
[M. S. SONAK, J.]
[V. M. KANADE, J.]
2 / 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the validity of Section 217(5) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, should be dismissed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Peninsyla Land Ltd. V/s. Brihan Mumbai Mahanagarpalika & ors.Referred¶3
_Peninsyla Land Ltd. V/s. Brihan Mumbai Mahanagarpalika & ors. - 2009 (2) Bom. C. R. 806_ · Who else cites this
Elora Construction Co. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater BombayReferred¶3
_Elora Construction Co. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay – AIR 1980 Bom. 162_ · Who else cites this
Gujarat Agro Industries Co. Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad & ors.Referred¶3
_Gujarat Agro Industries Co. Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad & ors. - (1999 ) 4 SCC 468._ · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s. G.L. Hotel
Municipal Commissioner of Brihanmumbai
V. M. Kanade
M. S. Sonak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
