Disposed

Mannuel Fernandes (Dec) Thr. Lrs., v. Shree Saunsthan Gokarn, Parthagal Jivottam Math, Rep. by Treasurer and 6 Ors.

Bombay HC25 Nov 2019WP/944/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding a demolition order for an illegal structure, the High Court directed authorities to reconsider the petitioner's regularisation application after receiving the necessary No Objection Certificate, mandating implementation of the demolition order within two months if regularisation is denied.

What did the court decide?

Redirected authorities to reconsider regularisation within 3 months; ordered implementation of demolition order within 2 months if regularisation denied.

Mannuel Fernandes (Dec) Thr. Lrs., Vs Shree… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO. 944 OF 2019

¶3

MANNUEL FERNANDES (DEC) THR. LRS., ... Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

SHREE SAUNSTHAN GOKARN, PARTHAGAL JIVOTTAM MATH, REP. BY TREASURER AND 6 ORS., ... Respondents

¶6

Mr.A. D. Bhobe, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D. Pangam, Advocate General with Mr. S. Redkar, Addl. Govt Advocate for respondent nos.3 to 7.

¶7

Coram:M. S. SONAK & PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ. Date:25th November, 2019

¶8

P.C.

¶9

Heard Mr. A. Bhobe, learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. D. Pangam, learned Advocate General appears for respondent nos.3 to 7.

¶10

Mr. Bhobe, points out that respondent nos.1 and 2 have been duly served in this matter.

¶11

Our record indicates that the petitioner had put up illegal structure to which demolition was ordered by the authorities. However, liberty was granted to the petitioner to seek regularisation, if permissible in law.

¶12

Mr. Bhobe, points out that the structure put up by the petitioner was amenable, however, no regularisation was in fact

¶13

WP/944/2019

¶14

¶15

ordered because respondent no.1, who is the owner of the property had refused to submit any NOC. Mr. Bhobe, points out that now the respondent no.1 has issued, necessary NOC which is placed on record at pages 44 to 47.

¶16

In peculiar facts of the present case, we direct respondent nos.5 and 6 to reconsider the petitioner's application for regularisation in accordance with law by taking into account NOC, issued by the respondent no.1. Such application, will have to be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law, within three months from today. If these authorities decide to grant the regularisation, then obviously, there is no question of implementation of the demolition order dated 25.1.2008. However, if no regularisation is granted, then, subject to any further remedy which the petitioner may have, authorities, will be duty bound to implement/execute the demolition order dated 25.1.2008, within a period of two months thereafter.

¶17

Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

All concerned to act on the basis of authenticated copy of this order.

¶19

PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.

¶20

M. S. SONAK, J.

¶21

Mannuel Fernandes (Dec) Thr. Lrs., v. Shree Saunsthan Gokarn, Parthagal Jivottam Math, Rep. by Treasurer and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mannuel Fernandes (Dec) Thr. Lrs., v. Shree Saunsthan Gokarn, Parthagal Jivottam Math, Rep. by Treasurer and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prajyot Ramchandra Kandolkar. Vs State of Goa Thr. the Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.

Anant Y. Lotlikar., Vs Kadamaba Transport Corporation Ltd., Thr. Its General Manager.

Alisha Govekar and Anr., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Chief Secretary and 4 Ors.

Sunshine Electricals Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Its Managing Director, Sadanand P. Verenkar., Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Govt. of Goa and Anr.

Martin Alphonso., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Goa and 2 Ors.

Ministry of Home Affairs, by Its Under Secretary., Vs Aleixo Arnolfo Pereira and 5 Ors.