Disposed

Manisha Heights Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 5 Ors.

Bombay HC8 Feb 2016WP/3112/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court quashed the impugned order dated 12th January 2015. It directed the Municipal Corporation to pass a fresh order by the Executive Engineer within a specific timeframe after hearing parties. The Court directed the petitioner not to commence nursing home functioning for two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order date 12th January 2015 quashed. Direction to pass fresh order by 31st March 2016. Non-functioning of nursing home for two weeks from service of order.

Manisha Heights Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2016)

ash

wp-3112.15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3112 OF 2015

¶5

Manisha Heights Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. .. Petitioner Vs The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others. .. Respondents --

¶6

Shri A.V. Anturkar, Senior Counsel along with Shri M.K. Tanna and Shri N.M. Dedhia i/b Shri P.M. Shah for the Petitioner. Mrs. Shobha Ajitkumar for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4. Shri Atul G. Damle, Senior Counsel i/b Shri Suresh M. Sabrad for the Respondent Nos.5 and 6.

¶7

Shri Upadhayay, Sub-Engineer (Building Proposal) E.S. For the BMC.

¶8

CORAM : A.S. OKA & C.V. BHADANG, JJ DATED : 8TH FEBRUARY 2016

¶9

P.C.

¶10

In view of the contention raised by the Petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the first to fourth Respondents on instructions states that the said Respondents are willing to withdraw the impugned order dated 12^th January 2015 and to hear the Petitioner and the fifth and sixth Respondents. The learned senior counsel appearing for the fifth and sixth Respondents states that a direction may be issued to the Municipal Corporation to pass an order within the time fixed by this Court.

¶11

2 wp-3112.15

¶12

ash

¶13

In view of the aforesaid statement, we pass the following

¶14

order:

¶15

ORDER :

¶16

(a) The impugned order dated 12^th January 2015 is quashed and set aside;

¶17

(b) We direct the representative of the Petitioner and the fifth and sixth Respondents to remain present before the Executive Engineer (Building Proposal) E.S. Of the Municipal Corporation on Monday the 22^nd February 2016 at 11.00 a.m.;

¶18

(c) After giving an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner as well as the fifth and sixth Respondents, the Executive Engineer shall pass a fresh order as expeditiously as possible and in any event on or before 31^st March 2016;

¶19

(d) It is for the Municipal Corporation to consider the contention of the Petitioner that the Executive Engineer (Building Proposal) E.S. is not competent to pass an order. If the Municipal Commissioner finds that the said officer is not competent, on 22^nd

¶20

ash

¶21

3 wp-3112.15

¶22

February 2016, the parties will be informed to appear before the appropriate officer of the Municipal Corporation;

¶23

(e) The order passed by the appropriate officer of the Municipal Corporation shall be communicated to the parties;

¶24

(f) Till the date of communication of the order to the Petitioner and for a period of two weeks from the date on which the order is served upon the Petitioner, the actual functioning of the Nursing Home shall not be commenced. However, this order will not prevent the fifth and sixth Respondents from continuing the interior work of the premises;

¶25

(g) All contentions of the parties on merits are kept open;

¶26

(h) The Petition is disposed of on above terms.

¶27

(C.V. BHADANG, J)

¶28

( A.S. OKA, J )

Manisha Heights Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manisha Heights Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Annappa Kalappa Magdum Vs the Dept of Forest and Revenue, through Chief Secretary, (Rehabilitation) and Ors.

Captain (Retd) Vishwajeet Sadanand Raut Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Public Prosecutor and Ors.

Shri. Hemant Dnyaneshwar Salve Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Anr.

Sushila Co.Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors.

M/S. Akshar Properties Vs Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors.

Sahebrao S/O Shankarrao Ranpise Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.