Allowed

Khiladi Komal Yadav v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

Bombay HC20 Jun 2016WP/649/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction under Article 226 for the respondents to decide his pending representation regarding potential demolition of his structure. The Court directed the Competent Authority of the Municipal Corporation to consider and decide the representation within three months, noting that it did not express an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Competent Authority of Municipal Corporation to consider and take appropriate decision on petitioner's representation within three months.

Khiladi Komal Yadav Vs Municipal Corporation of… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

wp 649.15.doc

¶2

Urmila Ingale

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 649 OF 2015

¶6

Khiladi Komal Yadav .. Petitioner Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and anr. .. Respondents

¶7

Mr.R.K.Mendadkar, for the Petitioner. Ms.Geeta Joglekar, for Respondents.

¶8

CORAM : SHANTANU.S.KEMKAR &

¶9

M.S.KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 20^th JUNE, 2016

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

. Through this Petition filed under Article 226 of the

¶12

Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking direction to the respondents to decide his representation dated 08/02/2014 Exhibit 'D'. According to the averments made in the Petition, the respondents are taking action against the petitioner thereby demolishing the structure occupied by the petitioner standing on the 44 ft D.P. Road from Jogeshwari Railway Station to S.V.Road, Jogeshwari (West), Mumbai-400102. On 26/09/2014, the Division Bench of this Court observed thus :

¶13

1/2

¶14

wp 649.15.doc

¶15

“Notice is issued in February 2014. The submission is made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, to stay the action based upon the same. The claim of the petitioner as stated to be based upon the existence of structure prior to 1^st January 1995, only needs to be adjudicated. The respondent – Corporation/other Authorities are under obligation to do so. In view of the scheme so already published, as the project is of widening of road, no case of any interim relief is made out. Stand over to 28/10/2014.”

¶16

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this

¶17

Petition may be disposed of by directing respondents to consider and take appropriate decision on the petitioner's pending representation- Exhibit 'D'.

¶18

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, we dispose of this Petition by directing the Competent Authority of Municipal Corporation to consider and take appropriate decision on the petitioner's representation Exhibit 'D' as expeditiously as possible but not later than 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Needless to say that we have not expressed our opinion on the merits of the matter.

¶19

( M.S.KARNIK, J.)

¶20

(SHANTANU.S.KEMKAR, J.)

¶21

2/2

Khiladi Komal Yadav v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khiladi Komal Yadav v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

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

Fatima Shabbir Sayyed Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

M/S Power House Fitness Ltd. (Formerly Known as Naaz Trading and Finance Ltd.) Vs the Commissioner, Mcgm and 3 Others

Ratna Shivaji Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shri. Ashiq Husain Akbaral Ali Bohari and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.

Julie K.John and Anr. Vs B.M.C.and Ors.

Jayant Maniklal Lunawat and Anr. Vs Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.