Dismissed

Paresh Shashikant Shah and Ors. v. Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Bombay HC24 Aug 2018WP/5441/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of Municipal Corporation's development permission. The Court held that suppressing the existence of a concurrently pending Civil Suit for identical reliefs warranted dismissal of the present public law remedy. Costs were awarded to the Legal Services Authority.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/-; petitioners entitled to pursue remedy in Civil Court subject to deposit.

Paresh Shashikant Shah and Ors. Vs Mira Bhayander Municipal… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2018)

37wp5441-17

pvr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.5441 OF 2017

¶7

1.Shri.Paresh Shashikant Shah & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus

¶8

1.Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation & Ors. ...Respondents

¶9

Mr.Ashutosh R.Gole, for the Petitioners.

¶10

Mr.N.R.Bubna, for Respondent no.1.

¶11

Mr.H.P.Pandey, for Respondent Nos.2 to 13.

¶12

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL, ACTING CJ. & G.S. KULKARNI, J. DATE : 24^th August, 2018

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the

¶15

record.

¶16

The petitioners pray for the following substantive reliefs:-

¶17

“a. That writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction be issued and the records and proceedings of the development permission dated 25/08/2016 (Exhibit – C) and order dated 16/01/2017 (Exhibit – H) issued by the 1^st Respondent, be called for and after examining the legality, validity and propriety thereof the development permission dated 25/08/2016 (Exhibit-C) and order dated 16/01/2017 (Exhibit-H) issued by the 1^st Respondent be quashed and set aside.

¶18

¶19

b. That writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction be issued and the 1^st Respondent be directed to forthwith

¶20

pvr 2

¶21

37wp5441-17

¶22

withdraw and cancel the development permission dated 25/08/2016 (Exhibit-C) and order dated 16/01/2017 (Exhibit-H) issued by it.”

¶23

The respondent nos.2 to 13 have placed on record a simple copy of Regular Civil Suit no.889 of 2016 filed by the petitioners with the following reliefs:-

¶24

“(a) it be pleased to order, decree and declare that, notice dated 05/11/2016 bearing no.MNP/P.K.K.2/1614/2016 – 17 pertaining suit garage is bad in law, illegal, unlawful and not binding upon the Plaintiffs (Plaintiff No.5);

¶25

(b) it be pleased to order, decree and declare that, act of Defendant Corporation in granting development permission upto plinth level vide outward No.MP/MNP/NR/2473/201617 dated 25/08/2016 and sanctioning plan vide Outward No.MB/MNP/NR/2473/2016-17 dated 25/08/2016 is without following due process of law;

¶26

(c) it be pleased to order, decree and declare that, act of Defendant Corporation in granting development permission upto plinth level vide outward No.MB/MNP/NR /2473/201617 dated – 25/08/2016 and sanctioning plan vide Outward No.MB/MNP/NR/2473/2016-17 dated 25/08/2016 is in gross violation of the provisions of MRTP Act,1966, MMC Act,1949 and Development Control Regulation for Mira – Bhayander;

¶27

The learned Counsel submits that filing of suit has not been mentioned in the writ petition. The suit has been filed in the year 2016 and the petition has been filed in the year 2017. The learned Counsel for the Corporation submits that they would deal with the issue on its own merit. Filing of the suit ought to have been fairly

37wp5441-17

pvr

mentioned in the Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, the petitioners have suppressed the fact of filing of suit in the civil court.

¶32

Writ Petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority within two weeks.

¶33

Digitally signed by Prashant PrashantVilas Rane Vilas Rane Date:2018.08.28 16:03:02 +0530

¶34

The petitioners shall be entitled to pursue their remedy before the Civil Court subject to deposit of cost.

¶35

[G.S. KULKARNI, J.] [ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE]

Paresh Shashikant Shah and Ors. v. Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paresh Shashikant Shah and Ors. v. Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation and Anr.

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

Dr. Surekha Kashinath Bhalerao Vs Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation through Commissioner and Ors.

Mahdokht Marzaban Irani and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra , through Its Chief Secretary and Ors.

Shri. Mohammad Siddiqui Mohammed Hussain Vs the State of Maharashtra through Honlble Minister of Forest Dept.

Irfan Fazlur Rehman Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Ors.

Savjibhai Vallabhbhai Chauhan and Ors. Vs Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation and Ors.

The Conservator of Forests and Anr. Vs Shri. Vishwas Sitaram Shinde