Disposed

Shri. Orape Dilip Dnyaneshwar v. Pune Municipal Corporation, through Commissioner and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Jun 2016WP/5114/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition directed against unauthorized public purpose construction. Instead of deciding the merits, the Court directed the trial court to dispose of the pending civil suit within eight months and kept all contentions open.

What did the court decide?

Directed the trial court to decide the pending civil suit expeditiously within eight months from the date of receipt of the order; kept all contentions open.

Shri. Orape Dilip Dnyaneshwar Vs Pune Municipal… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

prod-1-wp-5114-2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.5114 OF 2014

¶4

Orpe Dilip Dnyaneshwar ...Petitioner vs. Pune Municipal Corporation and Others ...Respondents

¶5

Mr. Prabhanjan Gujar, for the Petitioner Mr. R.M. Pethe, for Respondent No. 1. Ms. M.P. Thakur, for the State. Mr. V. Deore i/b. Mr. Mihir Raje, for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

¶6

CORAM : SHANTANU KEMKAR & MAKARAND KARNIK, JJ. DATE : JUNE 13, 2016

¶7

P.C.:

¶8

Not on board. Upon mentioning taken on board.

¶9

Parties through their counsel.

¶10

The grievance of the Petitioner is that Respondent No. 3

¶11

has raised an unauthorized construction on the plot reserved for the public purpose by the Municipal Corporation and inspite of making repeated complaints to that effect, Respondent No. 1 is not taking any action for demolition of the structure raised on the said plot which is reserved for public purpose. He submits that the reason behind the same is that the husband of Respondent No. 3 i.e. Respondent No. 4 is

¶12

a sitting Corporator of the Municipal Corporation.

1/3

Vishal Parekar

prod-1-wp-5114-2014

The learned counsel appearing for Municipal Corporation submits that in regard to the alleged unauthorized construction though Respondent No. 1 has initiated action but vide injunction order (Exhibit '5') passed by the Civil Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune in Regular Suit No. 1495 of 2014 the Municipal Corporation has been restrained from removing the alleged unauthorized construction.

¶17

The learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submits that the construction is not unauthorized and as the Civil suit at their instance is pending, the Municipal Corporation is not supposed to proceed for removal of the said structure.

¶18

Having considered the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the averments made in the Writ Petition, we are inclined to dispose of this Petition by directing the trial Court to decide the Civil suit pending before it as expeditiously as possible but not later than eight months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶19

The parties are directed to cooperate the trial Court for

2/3

Vishal Parekar

prod-1-wp-5114-2014

disposal of the Civil suit within the time fixed by this Court.

¶24

All the contentions raised in this Petition are kept open.

¶25

Accordingly the Petition stands disposed of.

¶26

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

¶27

3/3

¶28

Vishal Parekar

Shri. Orape Dilip Dnyaneshwar v. Pune Municipal Corporation, through Commissioner and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Orape Dilip Dnyaneshwar v. Pune Municipal Corporation, through Commissioner 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

Sarang Seva Sanstha Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 4 Ors.

Mr. Sunil Gajanan Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Satnam Singh Rasgotra Vs Indradhanu Palace Society and Anr.

Shivraj Engineering and Equipment Service Vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Anr.

M/S Manilal Patel Clearing Forwarding Pvt.Ltd Vs the Superintendent of Licence B.M.C. and Anr.

Sanjeevan Naik and 5 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 7 Ors.