Partly allowed

Palai Developers Private Limited and Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC13 Jul 2016WP/1504/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside a demand notice issued by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation for failing to address raised discrepancies via a reasoned order and remanded the matter. Liberty was granted to deposit the amount under protest to secure development clearances.

What did the court decide?

Set aside impugned demand notice and remand for reasoned order. Grant liberty to deposit amount under protest for issuance of development permissions.

Palai Developers Private Limited and Anr. Vs… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2016)

WP.1504/2016(909)

mnm

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 1504 OF 2016

¶6

Palai Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Petitioners Vs.

¶7

M.C.G.M. & Ors.

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

Mr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Sanjay V. Kadam, Ms. Apeksha Sharma, Sanjeel Kadam, Mr. Deepak Enakphale i/b. Kadam & Company, Advocates for the Petitioners Mr. A.A. Kumbakoni, Sr. Advocate a/w. Mr. Ashutosh Gavnekar, Ms. Shobha Ajitkumar, Advocates for the Respondent all the Respondents, BMC

¶10

CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR & M.S. KARNIK, JJ. DATED : 13^TH JULY, 2016

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

Parties through their Counsel. Through this Petition

¶13

filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the

¶14

Petitioners have challenged the impugned demand notice dated 27^th July, 2015 Exhibit-M issued by the Municipal Corporation, Mumbai.

¶15

The grievance of the Petitioners is that in terms of the

¶16

WP.1504/2016(909)

¶17

¶18

liberty granted by this Court vide order dated 13^th March, 2015 in Notice of Motion Nos. 160 of 2015, 173 of 2014, 175 of 2014 and 635/2014 in Writ Petition No. 1251 of 2014 the Petitioners had submitted the discrepancies in the chart shown in paragraph 12 of the order dated 5^th February, 2015 passed in various Writ Petitions including Writ Petition No. 1251 of 2014. However, inspite of there being a clear direction to the Municipal Corporation to take into consideration the discrepancies as pointed out by the Petitioners before finalising the amount of transfer premium and interest, if any, payable thereon, the Municipal Corporation has issued the impugned demand notice without adverting to the grounds raised by the Petitioners in their various representations Exhibits-K and N .

¶19

We have gone through the decision taken by the Municipal Corporation in regard to the Petitioners' grievance and we find that the Municipal Corporation has not passed any speaking order in regard to the various grounds raised by the Petitioners pointing out the discrepancies.

¶20

WP.1504/2016(909)

¶21

¶22

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Municipal

¶23

Corporation submits that so far as discrepancies in the calculations they have been addressed and the amount has been reduced and the other discrepancies may not be required to be decided.

¶24

5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned

¶25

Counsel for the parties and having gone through the impugned demand notice we find that the Municipal Corporation has not said anything about various grounds raised by the Petitioners.

¶26

In the circumstances we set aside the impugned demand

¶27

notice and remand back the matter to the Competent Authority of the Corporation who shall take decision on the Petitioners' grievance in terms of the liberty granted by this Court on 13^th March, 2015 and pass reasoned order in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

¶28

WP.1504/2016(909)

¶29

¶30

At this stage learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners

¶31

on instructions states that the Petitioners are willing to deposit the amount as per the impugned demand made by the Corporation under protest and subject to the outcome of the decision as may be taken by the Respondents and subject to the decision of the Writ Petition challenging the Constitutional validity of 2012 amendment. He submits that in that eventuality the Corporation be directed to issue necessary development permission and clearances. Mr. Kumbakoni, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Corporation submits that if the Petitioners deposits the amount as demanded by the Corporation even under protest, the Corporation shall grant necessary development permission and clearances in regard to the Petitioner No.1's property described in clause (d) of the Petition.

¶32

In view of the aforesaid stand taken by the parties we

¶33

grant liberty to the Petitioners to deposit under protest the entire amount claimed by the Respondent Corporation in the

¶34

WP.1504/2016(909)

¶35

¶36

impugned demand notice. On such deposit being made the Corporation shall issue the necessary development permission and clearances in accordance with law, subject to any other objection except non-payment of the impugned amount. It is made clear in case the Petitioners succeeds the amount so deposited by the Petitioners shall be refunded by the Corporation to the Petitioners with interest @ 12% p.a from the date of the decision till payment.

¶37

With the aforesaid direction the Petition stands disposed

¶38

of.

¶39

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

Palai Developers Private Limited and Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palai Developers Private Limited and Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai 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

Shri Saurashtra Dashashrimali and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Government Pleader High Court Mumbai and 72 Ors.

Prakash M. Shah and 8 Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai andANR

Kantibhai Girdharlal Megahni 14 Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Margaret @ June Stanley D'Souza Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Chembur Abhilash Co-Op.Hsg.Soc.Ltd. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 4 Ors.

Aakashdeep Co-Op Housing Society through Chairman Mr. Regi Planthopil Daniel Vs the Commissioner Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation and Ors.