Disposed

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

Bombay HC12 Jul 2016WP/2364/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, disposed of three writ petitions concerning conflicting structural reports on three buildings. The Court directed the Municipal Corporation to refer the matter to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) within two weeks and awaited the report before acting, leaving all contentions open.

What did the court decide?

Directed Municipal Corporation to refer matter to Technical Advisory Committee within 2 weeks; undertakings by occupants to continue pending TAC decision.

Prakash M. Shah and 8 Ors. Vs Municipal… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

WP.1858/2015, WP.2364/2013,

¶2

¶3

WP.932/2014 & NMWL.423/2013(904)

¶4

mnm

¶5

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

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 1858 OF 2015

¶7

Shri Saurashtra Dashashrimali Jain Bhojnalay Trust & Anr.

¶8

...Petitioners

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The State of Maharashtra & 72 Ors.

¶11

...Respondents

¶12

WITH

¶13

WRIT PETITION NO. 2364 OF 2013 WITH

¶14

NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO. 423 OF 2013

Prakash M. Shah

...Petitioner

Vs.

The Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai ...Respondent

¶19

WITH

¶20

WRIT PETITION NO. 932 OF 2014

¶21

Kantibhai Girdharlal Megahni & Ors.

¶22

...Petitioners

¶23

Vs.

¶24

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents

¶25

Mr. Mihir Desai, Sr, Advocate a/w. Mr. P.S. Abhyankar, Advocate i/b. Parul S. Abhyankar for the Petitioners in WP. No. 932/2014 and for Respondent Nos. 12, 14, 16, 17, 24(B), 24(C ), 25 & 28 in WP No. 971/2014

¶26

Ms. Madhur Surana i/b. Mr. S.G. Surana, Advocates for Respondent No.5 in WP. No. 932/2014

¶27

Ms. Pinky a/w. Mr. Jaini Shah i/b. M/s. MLS Vani & Associates for Respondent Nos. 33 to 35, 37 to 40, 46 to 73 in WP. No. 1858/2015

¶28

Mr. Devendra B. Singh, Advocate for the Petitioner in WP. No.1858/2015 and for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in WP.

¶29

2 WP.1858/2015, WP.2364/2013,

¶30

WP.932/2014 & NMWL.423/2013(904)

¶31

No.2364/2014 and for Respondent No. 2 in WP. No. 932/2014 Ms. K.H. Mastakar, Advocate for the BMC

¶32

CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR & M.S. KARNIK, JJ. DATED : 12^TH JULY, 2016

¶33

P.C. :

¶34

Parties through their Counsel. With consent heard finally.

¶35

Learned Counsel for the parties submit that there are

¶36

conflicting structural reports. Two are in favour of the landlord and the Municipal Corporation indicating therein that building Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are in dilapidated condition and requires demolition. One report, which is in favour of the occupants of the buildings, which has been submitted on the basis of direction issued by this Court indicates that out of three buildings building No.2 is stable and is not a dangerous structure. We have gone through the order dated 16^th July, 2015 passed in WP. No. 2364 of 2013 thereby while granting

¶37

the Rule this Court had observed that in the meanwhile it will

¶38

be open for the Municipal Corporation to refer the case to

¶39

3 WP.1858/2015, WP.2364/2013,

¶40

WP.932/2014 & NMWL.423/2013(904)

¶41

Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). It has been stated by the learned Counsel for the parties that till date the Municipal Corporation has not referred to the TAC. Keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: ANOOP V. MOHTA and A.A. Sayed, JJ decided on 23^rd June, 2014 in

¶42

WP. No. 1135 of 2014 we feel it appropriate to direct the Municipal Corporation to refer the matter to TAC as expeditiously as possible preferably within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The TAC on receipt of such reference shall abide by the directions contained in the order dated 23^rd June, 2014 passed in W.P. No. 1135 of 2014 and shall submit a report to the Corporation in regard to all the three buildings viz., Building Nos. 2, 3 and 4 situated at DS Nagar, Nursing Lane, Malad (West), Mumbai 400 064. The report shall be submitted by the TAC as expeditiously as possible.

¶43

4 WP.1858/2015, WP.2364/2013,

¶44

WP.932/2014 & NMWL.423/2013(904)

¶45

On receipt of the TAC report the Municipal Corporation shall act on the basis of the said report. If the TAC report is adverse to the occupants the same shall not be acted upon for a period of 2 weeks enabling the occupants to seek appropriate remedy against it in accordance with law. With these observations and directions all the three writ petitions and notice of motion stand disposed of. All the contentions raised in all the writ petitions are left open. The undertakings given by all the occupants of all the buildings shall continue till the decision of the TAC and 15 days thereafter.

¶46

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Krishna Kandaswamy Pallar Vs State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Our Lady of Vailankanni Ad Perpetual Succour Co. Operative Housing Society Ltd. and Anr. Vs Rev Fr. Simon Borges and 11 Ors.

All India Jamiat-Ui-Quresh, through Member Vs the Municipal Corporation of City of Pune, through Commissoner and Ors.

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

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

Jayshree C. Kabali and 2 Others Vs Assistant Engineer (Building and Factory), N Ward and 3 Others