Dismissed

M/S. Sion Kamgar Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

Bombay HC18 Jan 2016WP/847/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging State Government order on regularization. Court dismissed merit arguments but directed first respondent to act expeditiously on State order and grant petitioner hearing opportunity.

What did the court decide?

Dir. M.C. to act on State order within 3 months; Petitioner granted hearing opportunity on proposal.

M/S. Sion Kamgar Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. Vs the… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

32wp847-13.doc

¶2

spb/

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 847 OF 2013

¶5

M/s. Sion Kamgar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.,

¶6

… Petitioner.

¶7

V/s.

¶8

Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & Anr. … Respondents.

¶9

¶10

Mr. Harish R. Pawar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate a/w. Mrs. Shobna Ajitkumar, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 - BMC. Mr. Suraj Iyer i/by Ganesh & Co. for Respondent No. 2.

¶11

¶12

CORAM : A.S.OKA & C.V.BHADANG,JJ. DATE : 18^th JANUARY, 2016. P.C. :

¶13

1 Learned senior counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 has placed on record the order dated 11^th December, 2015 passed by the Hon'ble Minister of State, Urban Development Department of the State Government, in an appeal preferred by the second Respondent. It appears from the said order that the application for regularization will be reconsidered by the first Respondent Municipal Corporation after giving an opportunity of being heard to the second Respondent.

¶14

2 Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has some grievance about the manner in which the appeal has been

1/2

Borey

spb/

32wp847-13.doc

disposed of. However, the said grievance cannot be gone into in this petition. If the Petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, it is for him to adopt appropriate remedy. In view of the order of the State Government, relief which is prayed for in this petition cannot be granted.

¶20

3 Accordingly, we pass the following order :

¶21

ORDER

¶22

i. We direct the first Respondent to act upon the order dated 11^th December, 2015 passed by the State Government and to decide the proposal of the second Respondent as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from today;

¶23

ii. Needless to state that the Petitioner shall be granted an opportunity of being heard by the first Respondent Municipal Corporation on the proposal submitted by the second Respondent;

¶24

iii. All contentions on merits are kept open.

¶25

iv. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶26

(C.V. BHADANG,J.) (A.S. OKA, J.)

¶27

2/2

¶28

Borey

M/S. Sion Kamgar Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Sion Kamgar Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. v. the 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hemang P. Mehta Vs the Municipal Corp. of Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Deepak Bajaj and Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 9 Ors.

Haridas M. Nayak and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dr.Atul P Chirmade Vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Dr.Atul P Chirmade Vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Kashim B Sherkhan Vs State of Maharashtra and 6 Others