Allowed

Kishor M Kapadia v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC22 Jan 2018WP/1927/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerned a contempt proceeding against a Municipal Corporation official who failed to enforce an order regarding building irregularities. The official appeared, filed an affidavit detailing the violations, and tendered an unconditional apology. The High Court accepted the apology, discharged the contempt notice, and directed the Corporation to serve the notice to the fourth res

What did the court decide?

Contempt notice discharged; petitioner's apology accepted; Municipal Corporation directed to serve notice on fourth respondent and proceed logically; no final adjudication on facts of violation.

Kishor M Kapadia Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

WP. 1927-15.doc

¶2

VPH

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION No. 1927 OF 2015

¶5

WITH

¶6

SHOW CAUSE NOTICE No. 5 OF 2018

¶7

Kishor M. Kapadia … Petitioner Vs.

¶8

Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & Ors… Respondents

¶9

¶10

Mr. Firoz Bharucha a/w Ms. Nikita Vardhan i/b Kanga & Co.for the Petitioner.

¶11

Ms. Uma Palsule - Desai, for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. R. R. Mishra, for the Respondent No. 4.

¶12

¶13

CORAM : A. S. OKA, & P. N. DESHMUKH, JJ.

¶14

DATE : JANUARY 22, 2018 PC :

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the counsel for the parties.

¶16

Perused the orders dated 15^th September, 2015 and 19^th December,

¶17

Though a contempt notice in terms of the order dated 19^th December, 2017 has not been served, the officer to whom the

¶18

contempt notice was ordered to be issued is present in the Court and

¶19

1 / 4

¶20

WP. 1927-15.doc

¶21

has tendered his affidavit. He stated that he was assigned duty as a Designated Officer of the concerned area on 1^st August, 2016. He stated that the Designated Officer who was in charge of the area, when order dated 15^th September, 2015 was passed, was transferred. He stated that the file was not available with him.

¶22

After issuing notice under Section 488 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 to the 4^th Respondents, a Junior Engineer visited the subject flat on 8^th January, 2018. In paragraphs 6 and 7 of the affidavit, the officer has stated thus:

¶23

“6. I say that after the receipt of the plans, the said flat was again visited on 16.1.2018 when following irregularities were observed in flat No. 1015, West End Society, 10^th floor, C Wing, Raheja Vihar, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 072:

¶24

Horizontal extension of living room by shifting the wall over flower bed in flat No. 1015.

¶25

Removing of door of flat No. 1015 and constructing masonary wall in place of same.

¶26

Changing the kitchen into bedroom.

¶27

Covering the duct and converting the same into Water Closet.

¶28

I say that the said addition and alteration work mentioned herein are beyond the sanctioned plan No.

¶29

2 / 4

¶30

WP. 1927-15.doc

¶31

CE/3327/BPES/AL dated 25.11.2005 and the copy of the said sanctioned Plan is annexed hereto as Exhibit 'A'. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit B is the inspection report dated 16.1.2018 and registered as 20.1.2018.”

¶32

In paragraph 3, he has tendered unconditional apology to this Court. Though belatedly, the Designated Officer has made compliance. Though contempt notice is not served on him, he has appeared, filed an affidavit and has tendered apology. In view of the assurance given by him, the learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation, on instruction, states that a notice as stated in paragraph 7 of the affidavit, shall be served on the fourth Respondent during the course of the day. We accept the said statement. Hence, the petition need not be kept pending and we dispose of the petition by passing following order:

¶33

(i) We accept the apology tendered by Mr. Pravin Bharat Vasave and therefore, the contempt notice directed to be issued by order 19^th December, 2017 is discharged;

¶34

(ii) We accept the statements made in paragraphs 6 and 7

¶35

of the affidavit and the statement made across the bar

¶36

3 / 4

¶37

WP. 1927-15.doc

¶38

that a notice will be served on the fourth Respondent

¶39

during the course of the day;

¶40

(iii) It is obvious that subject to the remedies which may be available to the fourth Respondent in respect of the notice, the Municipal Corporation is bound to take the said notice to its logical end;

¶41

(iv) We, however, clarify that we have not made final adjudication on correctness or otherwise of paragraph 6 of the affidavit.

¶42

(v) The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶43

Sd/Sd/[P. N. DESHMUKH, J.] [A. S. OKA, J.]

¶44

Vinayak Halemath

¶45

4 / 4

Kishor M Kapadia v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishor M Kapadia v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Firoz Khan Shabbir Khan and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary Dept. of Housing and Urban Development and 2 Ors.

S. D. Pilankar Vs State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary Dept. of Housing and Urban Development and 2 Ors.

Gulraj Shewakram Madnani Vs Shri Rajendra Nimbalkar, Commissioner and Ora

Advanced Scientific Equipment Pvt. Ltd. Vs Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika and 3 Ors.

Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Asian Fisheries Vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation