Disposed

Shri. Sunil Parshuram Bhujbal v. State of Maharashtra, through U.D.Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Jul 2018WP/12608/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition alleging illegal construction by the fourth respondent. The Court directed the second respondent to inspect the structure within four weeks and initiate demolition if illegality is found, subject to prior notice. The Court reserved its judgment on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to inspect illegal construction within 4 weeks and initiate demolition after notice if illegality is found.

Shri. Sunil Parshuram Bhujbal Vs State of… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 wp12608.doc

¶2

ssp

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.12608 OF 2015

¶5

Sunil Parshuram Bhujbal
vs.
State of Maharashtra

¶6

...Petitioner

¶7

...Respondent

¶8

Ms Lalita Hemant Panchakshari for the Petitioner
Ms Nisha Mehra, AGP for the respondent No.1
Mr.Rajdeep S. Khadapkar for respondent No.2
Ms Trupti Goswami I/b Mr.D.D.Shinde for respondent
No.4.

¶9

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 RIYAZ.I.CHAGLA, JJ.
 DATE : JULY 17, 2018

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

1Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,
the learned counsel for the second respondent, the
learned AGP for the first respondent and the learned
counsel for the forth respondent. The grievance in
this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India is that the forth respondent has allegedly
carried out illegal construction as mentioned in the
petition and that the second respondent has not
taken any action notwithstanding complaints made by
the petitioners.

¶12

2This petition of the year 2014 need not be kept
pending and the same is disposed of by passing the
following order:

¶13

2 wp12608.doc

¶14

(I) We direct the second respondent to depute the
Designated Officer or any Officer to visit the
building/structure constructed by the fourth
respondent with a view to ascertain whether any
illegal construction has been carried out by the
fourth respondent. This exercise of taking
inspection shall be completed within a period of
four weeks from today;

¶15

(II)If the nominated Officer after inspecting the
building/structure finds that there is any
illegality committed by the fourth respondent, the
second respondent shall immediately initiate action
of demolition;

¶16

(III)Needless to add that the action shall be taken
only after giving notice to the fourth respondent as
well as all persons affected thereby;

¶17

(IV) Action taken by the second respondent/Municipal
Officer in terms of this direction shall be
communicated in writing by the concerned Officer of
the Municipal Corporation to the petitioner within a
period of four months from today;

¶18

(V)In case of inaction on the part of the Municipal
Corporation, it will be always open for the
petitioner to take out appropriate proceedings in
accordance with law;

¶19

(VI)We make it clear that we have made no
adjudication on merits of the complaint;

¶20

(RIYAZ.I.CHAGLA,J.)

¶21

(A.S.OKA,J.)

¶22

Digitally signed by Shubhashri Shubhashri Shridhar Shridhar Pathak Pathak Date: 2018.07.23 14:02:45 +0530

Shri. Sunil Parshuram Bhujbal v. State of Maharashtra, through U.D.Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Sunil Parshuram Bhujbal v. State of Maharashtra, through U.D.Dept 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

Balasaheb Dashrath Solankar and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Urban Development and Ors.

Surya Publicity Throu Proprietor Mr. Shankar Daware Vs Pune Municipal Corporation , Pune and Anr.

Shri. Asif Nabilal Bawa Vs Election Officer, No. 1 for Ward No. 12, 13, 14, 15 of Sangli Miraj and Kupwad Mun Corp and Anr.

Muchhala N v and 2 Others Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 11 Others

Mr Ganesh Prakash Wankar Vs the Municipal Corporation of City of Soloapur

Gail (India) Limited Vs Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Anr.