Disposed

Firoz Abdul Sattar Dhorajiwala v. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation

Bombay HC23 Jan 2018WP/491/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of five writ petitions challenging the inaction of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation regarding applications for transfer of tenancy in VLT plots. Directing the corporation to decide applications within 24 days and complete mutation within 13 days if granted, the Court explicitly saved the question of entitlement and directed the supply of circulars to all applicants.

What did the court decide?

Municipal Corporation directed to decide applications within 24 days and complete mutation within 13 days if granted; petitioners saved from requirement to fill prescribed format.

Firoz Abdul Sattar Dhorajiwala Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2018)

sl10-14

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
 WRIT PETITION (L)NO.3646 OF 2017,

¶5

Firoz Abdul Sattar Dhorajiwala ...Petitioner
vs.
Municipal Corporation of
Greater Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents

¶6

ALONG WITH

¶7

 WRIT PETITION (L)NO.3647 OF 2017

¶8

M/s. Om Trading ...Petitioner
vs.
Municipal Corporation of
Greater Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents

¶9

ALONG WITH

¶10

 WRIT PETITION (L)NO.3648 OF 2017,

¶11

M/s.Asian Fisharies...Petitioner
vs.
Municipal Corporation of
Greater Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents

¶12

ALONG WITH

¶13

 WRIT PETITION (L)NO.3649 OF 2017,

¶14

M/s.Haji Yusuf & Sons ...Petitioner
vs.
Municipal Corporation of
Greater Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents

¶15

ALONG WITH

¶16

 WRIT PETITION (L)NO.3650 OF 2017,

¶17

Ahmed J. Bakali ...Petitioner
vs.
Municipal Corporation of
Greater Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents

¶18

Mr.A.S.Singh for the Petitioner in all petitions
Mr.D.A.Dubey and Ms Shital Mane for the respondent-
MMC in all petitions

¶19

sl10-14

¶20

¶21

Mr.Suresh G. Tambde, Administrative Officer
(Estate), F/South Ward is present.

¶22

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 P.N.DESHMUKH,JJ.
DATE : JANUARY 23, 2018

¶23

P.C.:

¶24

1Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and the learned counsel for the Mumbai
Municipal Corporation. Identical affidavits-in-
reply have been filed in these petitions by the
Mumbai Municipal Corporation. The petitioners in
these petitions under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India have made a grievance that
notwithstanding the applications made by the
petitioners for transfer of tenancy/attornement of
tenancy in respect of Premises on VLT Plots, the
Mumbai Municipal Corporation has kept the
applications pending without taking any action
thereon. The contention is that at several stages,
various documents were produced by the petitioners
and notwithstanding the reminders issued, the Mumbai
Municipal Corporation has not taken any action.

¶25

2The learned counsel for the petitioners states
that only after filing of these petitions and after
this Court fixed these petitions today, on 20th
January 2018 the petitioners were called to the
concerned office of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation
and were given letters calling upon the petitioners
to submit certain documents. He has tendered across
the bar the copies of the letters dated 22nd January

¶26

3 sl10-14

¶27

2018 addressed by the petitioners. The learned
counsel for the petitioners have supplied photo
copies of the said letters dated 22nd January 2018 to
the Advocate for the Mumbai Municipal Corporation.

¶28

3The learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that almost all the documents were
supplied by the petitioners earlier and additional
documents were supplied by the petitioners on 22nd
January 2018. The Petitioners have rightly made a
grievance that the Mumbai Municipal Corporation
ought to have provided with the requirements which
are set out on page 34 of the affidavit in reply in
Writ Petition (L) No.3646 of 2017 so that the
petitioners would have made necessary compliance.

¶29

4The learned counsel for the Mumbai Municipal
Corporation relies upon the affidavits tendered
today. Reliance is placed on the circular dated 2nd
November 2016 which deals with the procedure for
dealing with the transfer of tenancies. The said
circular prescribes a format a copy of which is its
annexure. It sets out the details of the documents
which are required to be filed. A flow chart is
also a part of the annexure to the said circular.
The flow chart stipulates a time bound programme for
disposal of the applications regarding transfer of
tenancy or attornment in respect of the VLT plots.

¶30

5The learned counsel for the Mumbai Municipal
Corporation on instructions submits that if the
documents as specified in the prescribed format are

¶31

4 sl10-14

¶32

submitted by the petitioners, the applications made
by the petitioners will be immediately considered by
the Mumbai Municipal Corporation.

¶33

6We have perused the affidavit-in-rreply. The
circular dated 2nd November 2016 prescribes a format.
In our view, the Municipal Officers ought to have
informed the petitioners about the said circular and
provided a copy of the prescribed format to the
petitioners to enable them to take appropriate step.
There are large number of applications made by the
petitioners from time to time to the Mumbai
Municipal Corporation. However, there was no
response from the Mumbai Municipal Corporation.

¶34

7It is obvious that in the present case the
Mumbai Municipal Corporation cannot insist upon the
petitioners filing applications in the prescribed
format. However, the petitioners will have to submit
relevant documents. Out of the 7 documents shown in
the prescribed format, it is not necessary in each
case to submit all the documents. For example, if
the applicant is claiming transfer of attornment on
the basis of the no objection or documents executed
by the original lessee, he need not furnish the
documents which are set out in the item no.4.

¶35

8The learned counsel for the petitioners states
that all relevant documents have been already
submitted by the petitioners and certain other
documents are submitted on 22nd January 2018.

¶36

5 sl10-14

¶37

9As per the flow chart, intimation/letter of the
approval or otherwise granted will have to be
issued within a period of 24 days from 22nd January
2018.

¶38

10Hence, we dispose of the petitions by passing
the following order:

¶39

(I)We accept the statement made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners that all relevant
documents as per the requirements specified by the
prescribed format have been submitted by the
petitioners;

¶40

(II)In view of the aforesaid statement, without
insisting on the petitioners making an application
in prescribed format, the concerned Officer of the
Mumbai Municipal Corporation shall decide the
applicationsmadebythepetitionersas
expeditiously as possible and intimate the decision
to the petitioners within a period of 24 days from
22nd January 2018;

¶41

(III)If transfer is granted, further steps up to
and inclusive of registration of mutation entry
shall be taken within a period of 13 days from the
date of the intimation issued as above;

¶42

(IV)Ifsimilarapplicationsfortransfer/
attornment are pending, we direct the Mumbai
Municipal Corporation to forthwith supply a copy of
circular dated 2nd November 2016 along with annexures
thereto to the concerned applicants so that the
applicants need not approach this Court;

¶43

(V)We make it clear that we have made no

¶44

6 sl10-14

¶45

adjudication on the issue of entitlement of the
petitioners to grant of attornment or transfer of
tenancy;

¶46

(VI)writ petitions are disposed of.

¶47

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

Firoz Abdul Sattar Dhorajiwala v. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Firoz Abdul Sattar Dhorajiwala v. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation

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

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

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

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

Asian Fisheries Vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation

Smt. Kamal Keshav Ranade and Ors. Vs M/S. Rahul Builders and Ors.

Ravindra H. Shinde Vs State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Ors.