The Division Bench rejected two writ petitions challenging demolition notices issued under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. The court noted that petitioners had previously agreed to file undertakings to remove structures by a deadline but failed to do so.
Writ petitions are rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
oswp2332-2313
1
ssp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2332 OF 2016
Veena Upoor...Petitioner
vs.
Municipal Corporation of
Greater Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents
ALONG WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2313 OF 2016
Devji Nenshi Palani & Ors. ...Petitioners
vs.
Municipal Corporation of
Greater Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents
Mr.M.M.Vashi, Senior Counsel a/w Ms Aparna Devkar
i/b M.P.Vashi & Associates for the Petitioner/s in
both the petitions
Ms Vandana Mahadik for the respondent-MMC in both
the petitions
Mr.Anuj Dave i/b Vidhi Partners for respondent No.3
in both the petitions.
CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
P.N.DESHMUKH,JJ.
DATE : JANUARY 5, 2018
P.C.:
. Writ Petition No.2313 OF 2016 is Not on Board.
Taken on Board.
1The facts in both the petitions are more or
less similar. The challenge is to the notices issued
by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation in exercise of
power under section 488 of the Mumbai Municipal
Corporation Act,1888. The notices were for
2 oswp2332-2313
implementation of the final order passed on 1st
January 2012 under section 351 of the said Act is
for demolition of the subject structures.
2Our attention is invited to the order dated 9th
February 2016 passed by a Division Bench of this
Court in Writ Petition (L) No.344 of 2016. In the
said petition, similarly placed petitioners
challenged the similar notices. In view of the
undertakings filed by the said petitioners, time was
granted to the petitioners till 9th May 2016 to
remove the offending work/structures. Accordingly,
the undertakings were filed by the petitioners
therein.
3It is not disputed that on the earlier date,
time was granted to the learned counsel for the
petitioners to take instructions whether the
petitioners desire to file similar undertakings.
Today, the learned senior counsel for the
petitioners stated that the petitioners have not
responded and therefore, he is unable to make any
statement regarding filing of undertakings.
4What is relevant is ground (g) in both the
petitions. There is a categorical statement made
therein that the petitioners in these petitions are
willing to give undertakings as per the order dated
9th February 2016 in Writ Petition (L) No.344 of
2016. In view of the undertakings given by the
petitioners in the said petition, it was directed
that the orders made under section 351 of the said
3 oswp2332-2313
Act shall not be implemented till 9th May 2016. The
said order was passed to enable the petitioners
therein to remove the offending work/structure. In
fact, the undertakings were to remove the offending
work/structure within a period of three months from
the date of undertakings.
5Now, the petitioners are not coming forward to
file undertakings as per the stand taken on oath in
clause (g) of both the petitions.
6Therefore, no case of interference is made out
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Writ Petitions are rejected.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petitions made challenging the notices for demolition should be allowed given the failure of petitioners to file undertakings.
Whether a case of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is made out against the impugned notice.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Writ Petition (L) No.344 of 2016Referred¶19
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Veena Upoor
Devji Nenshi Palani
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
A.S.Oka
P.N.Deshmukh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court