Partly allowed

Shreedharan R. Thaliya Parampil v. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC21 Feb 2018WP/737/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petitions challenging a demolition notice and consequential order after accepting the petitioner's undertaking to apply for regularisation, adjourning the operation of such orders pending the outcome of the regularisation application and appeal.

What did the court decide?

Directing the petitioner to apply for regularisation within 60 days and staying the demolition notice and order until the final outcome of the application and appeal; granting liberty to file an appea

Shreedharan R. Thaliya Parampil Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

WPL. 520-18, 267-18.doc

¶2

VPH

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION (L) No. 520 OF 2018 WITH WRIT PETITION (L) No. 267 OF 2018

¶5

Shreedharan R. Thaliya Parampil … Petitioner Vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & Ors. … Respondents

¶6

¶7

Ms. Sanjukta Dey, for the Petitioner in both petitions. Ms. K. H. Mastakar, for the Respondent - BMC.

¶8

¶9

CORAM : A. S. OKA, & P. N. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : FEBRUARY 21, 2018

¶10

PC :

¶11

Writ Petition (L) No. 267 of 2018 has been preferred by

¶12

the Petitioner challenging the notice dated 18^th December, 2013 issued under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 and the order dated 22^nd July, 2015 passed on the basis of the said notice directing demolition of the structures / work subject matter of

¶13

the said notice. In Writ Petition (L) No. 520 of 2018, there is a challenge to the consequential notice dated 10^th February, 2018 issued

¶14

1 / 4

¶15

WPL. 520-18, 267-18.doc

¶16

by the Municipal Corporation on the basis of the aforesaid notice and order which are subject matter of challenge in the first petition.

¶17

In these two petitions, a common affidavit / undertaking is field by the Petitioner which is dated 20^th February, 2018 and which is tendered across the bar. It is taken on record and marked “X” for identification. In the said affidavit, the Petitioner has stated that he will apply for regularisation of the offending structure situated on CTS No. 312 described in show-cause notice dated 18^th December, 2013. In paragraph 3 of the said affidavit, the Petitioner has given undertaking that in case the regularisation application is rejected and the appeal preferred against the said order is dismissed, he will remove the structures and the entire work subject matter of the notice dated 18^th December, 2013.

¶18

We accept the statement and undertakings of the Petitioner under the said affidavit. Thus, the Petitioner has accepted that the structure / work subject matter of the impugned notice and the impugned order 22^nd July, 2015 is illegal and unauthorised. Therefore, the challenge to the impugned notice and the impugned order will not survive. Hence, we dispose of both the petitions by passing the

¶19

2 / 4

¶20

WPL. 520-18, 267-18.doc

¶21

following order:

¶22

(i) It will be open for the Petitioner to make an application for regularisation of the subject structure / work by online mode through a licensed architect within a period of sixty days from today;

¶23

(ii) The application for regularisation shall be decided within 60 days from the date of filing such application. The order passed on the regularisation application shall be communicated to the architect of the Petitioner.

¶24

(iii) In case application for regularisation is filed within 60 days from today, till the date of communication of the order passed on the regularisation application to the Petitioner's architect, no action shall be taken on the basis of the impugned notice and the impugned order.

¶25

(iv) If the said order be adverse to the Petitioner, action of demolition shall not be taken for a period of one month from the date of service of the said order on the Petitioner's architect to enable the Petitioner to file an

¶26

3 / 4

¶27

WPL. 520-18, 267-18.doc

¶28

appeal under Section 47 of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966;

¶29

(v) If the said appeal is dismissed, the Petitioner shall remove the structure / work within a period of one month from the date on which copy of order in appeal is served on him. If the Petitioner fails to take the action as assured in the undertaking within a period of one month, as aforesaid, it will be open for the Municipal Corporation to implement the impugned notice and the impugned order without any further notice to the Petitioner;

¶30

(vi) All contentions of the Petitioner on the application for regularisation to be made by him are kept open;

¶31

Vinayak Halemath

¶32

4 / 4

Shreedharan R. Thaliya Parampil v. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shreedharan R. Thaliya Parampil v. Municipal Corporation of Gr. 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

S.D. Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and 5 Ors.

Bansilal Pawar and 3 Others Vs Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and 3 Others and K and M Sheltors Pvt. Ltd. (a

Bansilal Pawar and 3 Others Vs Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors. and Sandeep Braganza and 3 Ors. - Applicants

Mohamed Afsar Sayed S/O Mohamed Ayub Vs Municipal Corpration of Greater Mumbai

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. through General Mangaer, Vs the Municipal Commissioner Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation

Hiraman Mukunda Garate Vs State of Maharasthra through the Secretary and Ors.