Disposed

Aziz Peerbhai Chokiya and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Bombay HC14 Jul 2016WP/2365/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two petitioners challenged the Bombay High Court considered conflicting reports regarding a building's structural integrity. The bench directed the Mumbai Corporation to refer the matter to a Technical Advisory Committee within two weeks. The committee's adverse report would remain non-functional for 15 days to allow for legal challenge.

What did the court decide?

Corporation directed to refer matter to Technical Advisory Committee within two weeks; adverse TAC report given no effect for 15 days.

Aziz Peerbhai Chokiya and Anr. Vs the State of… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

906.wp 2365.15.doc

¶2

Urmila Ingale

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 2365 OF 2015

¶6

Aziz Peerbhai Chokiya and anr. .. Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents

¶7

Mr.S.R.Singh, for the Petitioners.

¶8

Ms.Shobha Ajitkumar, for Respondents No. 2 to 4 – BMC. Mr.Amit Shastri, AGP for Respondents No. 1 & 5 – State. Mr.Y.K.Tiwari i/b Mr.R.M.Yadav, for Respondent No.6.

¶9

CORAM : SHANTANU.S.KEMKAR &

¶10

M.S.KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 14^th JULY, 2016

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

. Heard parties through their Counsel.

¶13

The grievance of the petitioners is that the

¶14

respondents No. 2 to 4 – Corporation, did not pay any heed to

¶15

the report submitted by the petitioners received from Veermata

¶16

Jijabai Technological Institute (for short 'VJTI') in regard to the

¶17

structure in question stating therein that the structure is

¶18

repairable and need not to be demolished. We find that even

¶19

the Corporation has taken note of the fact that the petitioners

¶20

1/3

¶21

906.wp 2365.15.doc

¶22

had submitted report which was in conflict with the report submitted by respondent No. 6 in which it was stated that the building is in dilapidated condition and requires to be pulled down.

¶23

Thus admittedly there are two different conflicting reports about the condition of the structure in question. In the circumstances, keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs. State of Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition (L) No. 1135 of 2014, we are of the view that the matter requires to be referred to Technical Advisory Committee (for short 'TAC') for deciding the condition of the structure.

¶24

As a result, we direct the Corporation to refer the matter to TAC within two weeks. The TAC, on getting the reference from the Corporation, shall consider both the reports and shall thereafter take appropriate decision in accordance with law keeping in view the directions contained in paragraph

¶25

2/3

¶26

906.wp 2365.15.doc

¶27

9 of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 23/06/2014 in Writ Petition (L) No. 1135 of 2014.

¶28

The TAC report, if adverse to the interest of the petitioners shall not be given effect to by the Corporation for the period of 15 days enabling the petitioners to seek appropriate remedy against it in accordance with law.

¶29

As regards the controversy as to whether the water connection of the petitioners is required to be restored or not, we feel that it is not necessary at this stage to pass any order in that regard.

¶30

The undertaking which has already been submitted

¶31

by the petitioners shall be operative till TAC decides the matter and upto 15 days thereafter.

¶32

With the aforesaid, Petition stands disposed of.

¶33

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

¶34

3/3

Aziz Peerbhai Chokiya and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aziz Peerbhai Chokiya and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

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.

Rahul Krishna Chitalkar Vs District Collector and Ors.

Nerul Roj Bazaar Vyapari Seva Sanstha Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri Chatrapati Parshuram Koli and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Govt. Pleader and Ors.