Disposed

Indus Towers Limited and Others v. Municipal Corporation, Dhule and Others

Bombay HC21 Jun 2016WP/3583/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, observing that regularization applications by the petitioners were pending, directed the Corporation to decide such applications on merits. Consequently, the Court suspended further action under relevant Town Planning and Municipal Corporation Acts until a decision was taken.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Corporation to consider regularization applications on merits and restraining further proceedings under the challenged sections until the decision.

Indus Towers Limited and Others Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 WP-3583.13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 3583 OF 2013

¶4

Indus Towers Limited and others

¶5

...PETITIONERS

¶6

versus

¶7

Municipal Corporation, Dhule and others

¶8

...RESPONDENTS

¶9

Mr. Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioners Mr. S.P. Shah, Advocate for respondent No. 1 Mr. S.M. Ganachari, AGP for respondent No. 3

¶10

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.

¶11

DATED : 21^st JUNE, 2016.

¶12

Order :-

¶13

Present petition is filed challenging notices dated 12-04-2013 (Exhibit-C) colly., whereby the petitioners are directed to remove the constructions. Said notices are issued having recourse to sections 52 and 53 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 and Sections 260 and 478 of the Maharashtra Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949.

¶14

We have heard learned counsel for petitioners and respondents.

¶15

We are not going into merits of the contentions of learned counsel for either of the parties as it is submitted that the petitioners/owners of the building have already applied for regularization of their constructions. According to Mr. Shah, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, there is nothing on record to show that one Mr. Dwarkadas Agrawal has applied for regularization of his construction.

¶16

Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for petitioners states that even Dwarkadas Agrawal has applied for regularization of his construction. If no

¶17

2 WP-3583.13

¶18

such application appears on the record of the Corporation, fresh application would be filed within one week from today.

¶19

Considering the fact that regularization applications of the petitioners are pending, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent - Corporation to take decision on said applications for regularization of construction. In the result, we pass the following order.

¶20

(i) Respondent - Corporation shall consider the applications for regularization of the constructions filed by petitioners / owners on its own merits in accordance with law.

¶21

(ii) Till decision is taken on said applications for regularization of constructions, the respondents - authorities shall not proceed further with any action under sections 52 and 53 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 and 260 and 478 of the Maharashtra Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949.

¶22

(iii) Parties are entitled to represent themselves before the authority.

¶23

(iv) All contentions of respective parties are kept open.

¶24

With aforesaid directions, writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶25

MTK

Indus Towers Limited and Others v. Municipal Corporation, Dhule and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indus Towers Limited and Others v. Municipal Corporation, Dhule and Others

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

Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Magasvargiya Kashtakari Sahkari Griha Nirman Society Ltd, Aurangabad Vs State of Maharashtra and Another

Sudhakar Vishnupant Subhedar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shahada Taluka Co-Operative Education Society Limited Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation Ltd. Vs Ambrushi Mohan Lomte and Ors.

Sudhakar Dattatraya Deomali Vs Indian Oil Corporation and Others

Babasaheb Duli Rathod and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others