Disposed

Shri. Ratan Banvarilal Sharma and Ors. v. the Commissioner, Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corp. and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Jun 2016WP/4588/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Commissioner to hear written arguments from the petitioner and other respondents before passing a speaking order within two weeks, directing the Commissioner to dispose of the matter based on the prior Division Bench order.

What did the court decide?

Written arguments directed to be submitted by parties; Commissioner directed to pass a speaking order within two weeks of receiving written arguments.

Shri. Ratan Banvarilal Sharma and Ors… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2016)

WP.4588/2016(905)

mnm

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 4588 OF 2016

¶6

Ratan Banvarilal Sharma & Ors. ...Petitioners Vs. The Commissioner K.D..C. & Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

Ms. Yasmin Tawaria i/b. Mr. Sandeep Waghmare, Advocaate for the Petitioners Mr. R.S. Apte, Senior Counsel a/w. Mr. Kashyap Bhalerao Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 to 7

¶8

Mr. A.S. Rao, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3

¶9

CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR &

¶10

M.S. KARNIK, JJ. DATED : 16^TH JUNE, 2016

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

Parties through their Counsel. The matter has been

¶13

heard at length. During the course of hearing we have noticed that in the impugned order which has been passed by

¶14

the Commissioner, the Commissioner has merely approved

¶15

the notings of the Officers regarding granting permission to

¶16

restart the work.

¶17

We find that a Division Bench of this Court on 20^th

¶18

WP.4588/2016(905)

¶19

¶20

November, 2012 in Writ Petition No. 4738 of 2012 had passed following order:

¶21

“Counsel for the applicants submits that in view of the subsequent arrangement arrived at between the parties and as recorded by the Commissioner in the Minutes dated 5^th November, 2012, nothing survives for consideration in this petition. As a matter of fact, it is agreed that private parties would abide by the arrangement mentioned in the said Minutes dated 5^th November, 2012. If there is any issue which the occupants would like to pursue, that issue be brought to the notice of the Commissioner, who can consider the same in accordance with the agreed terms and conditions specified in the Memorandum of Understanding and issue such directions as may be necessary.

¶22

In view of the above, Writ Petition as well as Civil Application is disposed of. The Commissioner assures compliance of the directions contained in the order dated 9^th October, 2012.”

¶23

WP.4588/2016(905)

¶24

¶25

In view of the aforesaid order when the issue was raised

¶26

by the occupants before the Commissioner, the Commissioner himself ought to have heard and passed a reasoned order. Whereas in the present case we find that the Commissioner has not passed the order, but has approved the notings only. In the circumstances we have suggested the learned Counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation as to whether in terms of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 20^th November, 2012 the Commissioner would pass a reasoned order himself. The learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation has fairly agreed to this suggestion.

¶27

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner may be given one more opportunity of hearing before the Commissioner, to this learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation and for Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 submit that in fact when the earlier order was passed the Commissioner himself heard the Petitioner and the very same Commissioner is still in the office. In the circumstances we

¶28

WP.4588/2016(905)

¶29

¶30

feel that the principles of natural justice will be well served if the Petitioner is given an opportunity to submit written arguments before the Commissioner. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that she will submit written arguments within 2 weeks.

¶31

Accordingly we direct that from the date of receipt of

¶32

the said written arguments the Commissioner shall pass a speaking order within 2 weeks in regard to the points as may be raised by the Petitioner in the written arguments. The Petitioner to raise all the points in the written arguments comprehensively including the grounds raised in the Writ Petition.

¶33

Needless to say that this Court has not decided any

¶34

point on the merits of the case and the Commissioner shall be free to decide the matter in accordance with law.

¶35

At this stage learned Counsel appearing for Respondent

¶36

Nos. 4 to 7 submits that the Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 may also

¶37

WP.4588/2016(905)

¶38

¶39

be granted liberty to submit their written arguments before the Commissioner. The prayer is accepted. Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 are also at liberty to file their written arguments before the Commissioner within the aforesaid period of two weeks.

¶40

With the aforesaid directions the Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶41

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

Shri. Ratan Banvarilal Sharma and Ors. v. the Commissioner, Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corp. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Ratan Banvarilal Sharma and Ors. v. the Commissioner, Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corp. and 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

Mrs. Jyotsna Shailesh Mody and Anr. Vs Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation

Municipal Commissioner of Pune Vs Samayak Sankalp Vichar Santha through Chairman Mrs. Kavita v. Patekar

Shri. Shaaz Z. Fakih Vs the Municipal Corporation for Kalyan and Dombivali and Ors.

Nikhil Dilip Chauhan and 8 Ors. Vs Municipal Commissioner of Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Parshwanath Charitable Trusts Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Higher and Technical Education and Ors.

Fatima Shabbir Sayyed Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another