Disposed

Suresh Vitthal Thadge v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Another

Bombay HC4 Jan 2018WP/150/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay disposed of a writ petition regarding non-demolition of a toilet block. The court accepted the Corporate's statement that demolition was not done and dismissed the petition, keeping remedies against a private party open.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; the Municipal Corporation is exonerated regarding the toilet block; remedies against the private party respondent are kept open.

Suresh Vitthal Thadge Vs the Municipal Corporation… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

rsk

¶2

P-505-WPL-3698-17.doc

¶3

1/2

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO.3698 OF 2017

¶5

Suresh Vitthal Thadge

¶6

..Petitioner

¶7

vs.

¶8

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Another

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

Mr.Manish Mazgaonkar for the Petitioner.

¶11

Mr. N. V. Walawalkar, Senior counsel a/w Ms. Pallavi Thakar for the Respondent No.1.

¶12

Mr. Rui Rodrigues i/b B.R. Oza & Co. for the Respondent No.2. Mr.Sadique Khan, Designated Officer-III 'N' Ward.

¶13

CORAM : A.S. OKA & P. N. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : 4^th JANUARY, 2018

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

Not on board. Taken on board.

¶16

Our attention is drawn to the averments made in the Petition and in particular the averments made in clause (b) of paragraph 2 of the Petition. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation states that the toilet block referred in clause (b) has not been demolished by the Municipal Corporation. He also invited our attention to the order dated 21^st December 2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in First Appeal No.627/2012 and connected Appeal. We accept the aforesaid statement made on instructions of Shri Sadique Khan..

¶17

The Respondent No.2 is a private party against whom a writ cannot be issued. Therefore, if the Respondent No.2 has demolished the toilet block, no relief can be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the said Respondent and that the Petitioner will have to adopt appropriate remedy available to him against the said Respondent.

¶18

P-505-WPL-3698-17.doc

¶19

2/2

¶20

rsk

¶21

A copy of the order dated 21^st December, 2017 and photographs tendered by the learned Senior counsel for the Municipal Corporation are taken on record and marked 'X-1' and 'X-2' for identification.

¶22

By accepting the statement made on behalf of the Respondent No.1 on instructions of Shri Sadique Khan, Assistant Engineer (B & F) 'N' Ward, we dispose of this Petition.

¶23

We make it clear that the remedies available to the Petitioner against the Respondent No.2 are expressly kept open.

¶24

(P.N. DESHMUKH, J) (A.S. OKA, J.)

Suresh Vitthal Thadge v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Vitthal Thadge v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Momin Nargis Arif Hussain Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Jaswant Gorakhnath Singh Vs Vasai Virar Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Devji Nenshi Palani and Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Santosh Gaurishankar Kanojia and Anr. Vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corpn.for Gr. Bombay and Ors. and Omkar Realtors Projects Pvt. Ltd. (Intervener