Dismissed

M. Farroque M. Yusuf v. S. N. Bhagat the Deputy Chief Engineer and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC23 Aug 2018CONPW/83/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners challenged a previous bench's decision to dismiss a contempt petition filed against the MBR&R Board and MHADA. Invoking its own contempt jurisdiction, the court held that since the petitioner failed to obtain necessary IOD and CC from MCGM, no case for initiating contempt action against the respondents was made out.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition dismissed with the view that no case for initiating contempt action was made out due to the petitioner's failure to obtain IOD and CC from MCGM.

M. Farroque M. Yusuf Vs S. N. Bhagat the Deputy Chief… — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

(9) conpw-83.17.doc

¶2

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

¶3

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.83 OF 2017 IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO.24 OF 2015 IN

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2241 OF 2013

¶5

M Farroque M Yusuf : Petitioner. Versus S N Bhagat the Deputy Chief Engineer (Then the Executive Engineer) of MBR&R Board and ors. : Respondents.

¶6

Mr. S K Jain i/by Mr. Sachin Ramchandra Gelye for the Petitioner. Mrs. Manisha Shekhar Jagtap for the Respondent No.3.

¶7

CORAM : R. M. SAVANT & K. K. SONAWANE, JJ. DATE : 23^rd AUGUST 2018

¶8

P.C.

¶9

1 The contempt alleged is of the order dated 16/07/2014 passed in the Writ Petition No.2241 of 2013. By the said order the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein were directed to initiate action of issuance of work order for repair and/or reconstruction of building No.2/4/6, Narayan Dhuru Street, Khatiya Mansion, B-1, Division Pydhonie, Mumbai – 400 003 consisting of ground plus eight floor in accordance with the provisions of the MHADA Act.

¶10

2 It seems that since the said order dated 16/07/2014 was not being complied with, the Petitioner had filed Contempt Petition being No.24 of 2015. The said Contempt Petition had come up before a Division Bench of this Court

¶11

lgc 1 of 3

¶12

(9) conpw-83.17.doc

¶13

(Coram : S.C.Dharmadhikari and G. S. Kulkarni, JJ) on 25/06/2015, on which day a copy of the NOC dated 24/06/2015 was produced by the learned counsel appearing for the Mumbai Building Repair and Reconstruction Board (M.B.R. & R Board) and Maharashtra Housing and Area Development (MHADA). The said copy was accordingly taken on record by the Division Bench and in view thereof, the Division Bench did not deem it fit to exercise the contempt jurisdiction. The Division Bench prior to disposal of the said Contempt Petition however expressed the need for the M.B.R. & R Board and MHADA to expedite the process of issuance of the work orders as most of the time the tenants of the building are suffering on account of the fact that their building has been demolished either for repair or reconstruction and there is a delay in commencement of the work.

¶14

3 The said NOC which was produced before the Division Bench is annexed to the instant Contempt Petition at Exhibit-C. By the said NOC certain conditions have been stipulated by the M.B.R. & R Board amongst which is the condition that no work can be commenced without IOD and CC from the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai (MCGM). Admittedly, in the instant case, the IOD and CC has not been obtained by the Petitioner and it seems that the Petitioner has already put up construction of ground plus 3 floors, and the Petitioner proposes to put up additional floor so as to construct a building of the same height and dimension as the original building was

¶15

2 of 3

¶16

lgc

¶17

(9) conpw-83.17.doc

¶18

according to the Petitioner. For the said purpose the Petitioner wants a work

¶19

order to be issued by the M.B.R. & R Board and MHADA.

¶20

4 In the light of the fact that the Petitioner has not obtained the IOD and CC from the MCGM, in our view, no grievance can lie against the said two statutory authorities i.e. M.B.R. & R Board and MHADA. It is only after the Petitioner obtains the IOD and CC from the MCGM, that the M.B.R. & R Board and MHADA would process the Petitioner's case for grant of the work order. In our view, therefore, no case for initiating any contempt action against the Respondent is made out. The above Contempt Petition is accordingly dismssed.

¶21

[K. K. SONAWANE, J]

¶22

[R.M.SAVANT, J]

¶23

Laxmikant Gopal Chandan

¶24

Digitally signed by Laxmikant Gopal Chandan Date: 2018.08.27 12:25:22 +0530

¶25

3 of 3

¶26

lgc

M. Farroque M. Yusuf v. S. N. Bhagat the Deputy Chief Engineer and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Farroque M. Yusuf v. S. N. Bhagat the Deputy Chief Engineer and 2 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

Zulash Clearing and Shipping Agency Vs Secretary, the Clearing and Forwarding Unprotected Dock Labour Board and Anr.

M/S. Katare Cotton Waste Spinning Mills through Its Proprietor Vs the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.

Love Inder Berry Vs State Bank of India through Its Chief Manager

Dinesh Parmar Vs the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks and Anr.

Shri. Yuvraj Dhondu Bhadane Vs the State of Maharashtra through Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Jay Constructions Vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. and 3 Ors.