Dismissed

Zahid Hussain Mirza v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC25 Jun 2018WP/1906/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a demolition notice pursuant to the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act 1888, the court rejected the petition because the petitioner had reconstructed the structure without permission despite a prior notice.

What did the court decide?

The petition was rejected on the grounds that the petitioner had reconstructed the unauthorized structure without permission.

Zahid Hussain Mirza Vs the Municipal Corporation of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

wpl-1979.18.odt

¶2

pmw

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 1979 OF 2018

¶5

Zahid Hussain Mirza Vs.

¶6

… Petitioner

¶7

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. … Respondents

¶8

Mr. Ram U. Singh for the Petitioner. Ms. Vandana Mahadik for the Respondent - BMC.

¶9

CORAM : A.S. OKA & RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ. DATE : 25^th JUNE 2018

¶10

P.C.

¶11

. Not on board. Taken on board.

¶12

1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the notice dated 3^rd April 2018 under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act 1888. The allegation in the notice is that the petitioner has carried out unauthorised construction of ground floor structure with B.M. Walls, A.C. sheet roof supported on M.S. angle having measurements mentioned in the notice. An order was passed on 18^th May 2018 in terms of the show cause notice directing demolition of the structure.

¶13

1 of 2

¶14

wpl-1979.18.odt

¶15

2 In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has relied upon the photographs of the structure which are marked as Exhibit – 'U'. The petitioner claims that the structure subject matter of the notice and order has been partly demolished. Photographs on pages 155 and 156 (Exhibit – 'U') show that substantial part of the structure has been demolished. The said photographs have been taken on 28^th May 2018. Today, an affidavit of the petitioner is produced along with copies of fresh photographs taken on 22^nd June 2018. If the said photographs and in particular photograph at page 164 is compared with the first photograph at page 155, it is crystal clear that without seeking permission of the Municipal Corporation or this Court, the petitioner has carried out reconstruction and is carrying on business in the reconstructed premises.

¶16

3 Considering this conduct of the petitioner, he cannot be allowed to invoke discretionary and equitable jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is accordingly rejected.

¶17

(RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, J) (A.S. OKA, J)

¶18

2 of 2

Zahid Hussain Mirza v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zahid Hussain Mirza v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 2 Ors.

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

Mohd. Salim Khan and 8 Ors. Vs Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. and 4 Ors.

Prasant Surve Vs the Municipal Commissioner Mcgm and 6 Ors.

Ansari Iqbal Ahemad Mohd. Haroon Vs the State of Maharashtra through Dept. of Urban Development and Ors.

Shri. Prakash Sukhdev Bhoir and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Nitesh Prataprai Kothari Vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation and 2 Ors.

Vijay Punjab Building No. 18 Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs Bombay Municipal Corporation Greater Bombay and 4 Ors.