Disposed

F.N.Social, Educational Medical Charities Trust through Its Trustees Lazarus S. Chinnappa and Anr. v. Pune Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner and Anr.

Bombay HC17 Dec 2021WP/9092/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged building plans and commencement certificates issued to a developer, alleging violation of a Joint Charity Commissioner order. The Bench accepted an undertaking restricting construction and directed the Corporation within twelve weeks to decide on the petitioner's representation without disposing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Undertaking accepted; direction to Pune Municipal Corporation to decide on petitioner's representation within twelve weeks; writ petition disposed in these terms.

F.N.Social, Educational Medical Charities Trust… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1 7-WP 9092-21.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.9092 OF 2021

¶4

F.N. Social, Educational Medical Charities

¶5

Trust, Thr. Its Trustees Mr. Lazarus S. Chinnappa
& Anr.

¶6

… Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Pune Municipal Corporation, Thr. Its Commissioner
& Anr.… Respondents

¶9

Mr. Sangram Chinnappa a/w Mr. Kartikeya Bahadur for the Petitioners.
Mr. Vishwanath Patil for the Respondent No.1-PMC.
Mr. Saket Mone with Mr. Abhishek Salian i/by Vidhii Partners for the
Respondent No.2.

¶10

CORAM :A.A. SAYED &

¶11

ABHAY AHUJA, JJ.

¶12

DATE :17TH DECEMBER 2021

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

1. This Petition is filed seeking the following relief :-

¶15

“b. That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate a Writ of certiorari or a Writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, quash and set aside the building plans and commencement certificates sanctioned by the Respondent No.1 Corporation in favour of respondent No.2 herein being Exhibit Q colly hereto.”

¶16

1 of 5

¶17

Mugdha

¶18

2 7-WP 9092-21.odt

¶19

2.Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has invited our attention

¶20

to the letter dated 31st December, 2020 (Exhibit ‘L’, Page 155 to the
Petition), addressed to the Commissioner of the Respondent No.1-Pune
Municipal Corporation. He has also pointed out the judgment dated 10th
August, 2018 of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.10854 of 2016 and
connected matters, filed by the Respondent No.2-Developer herein
[reported in (2018) 18 SCC 257] and the further order dated 27th
January, 2020 of the Supreme Court (tendered across the bar). It is
contended that despite the order of the Supreme Court, the building
permission has been wrongly issued to the Respondent No.2-Developer by
the Respondent No.1-Pune Municipal Corporation.

¶21

3.It is submitted that even though an order passed by the Joint
Charity Commissioner, Pune dated 4th October, 2017, restraining the
Respondent No.2-Developer from carrying out construction on the subject
land, which belongs to the Petitioner Trust, the Respondent No.2-
Developer is still continuing the construction.

¶22

4.Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2-Developer

¶23

submitted that against the restraint order dated 4th October, 2017 of the

¶24

2 of 5

¶25

Mugdha

¶26

3 7-WP 9092-21.odt

¶27

Joint Charity Commissioner, the Petitioner No.2-Developer has filed Civil
Appeal bearing No.131 of 2020 before the District Court, Pune which
refused to vacate the interim order of the Joint Charity Commissioner. It is
further pointed out that vide order dated 17th December, 2020 passed by
learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition (Stamp) No.97753 of
2020 filed against the order of the District Court, directions were issued to
the District Court to hear the Civil Appeal No.131 of 2020 expeditiously
and preferably within a period of four months. We are informed that the
said Civil Appeal is still pending and has so far not been disposed of.

¶28

5.Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2-Developer has also
pointed out that the Petitioners have already made an Application before
the Joint Charity Commissioner alleging breach of order passed by the
Joint Charity Commissioner, wherein directions were issued by the Joint
Charity Commissioner for an inquiry and accordingly a Panchanama has
been drawn and the matter is now before the Joint Charity Commissioner
as regards the claim of the Petitioner-Trust that despite the order of the
Joint Charity Commissioner, the Respondent No.2-Developer is carrying
on the construction work. According to the learned Counsel for the
Respondent No.2-Developer, no work of construction was carried out after

¶29

3 of 5

¶30

Mugdha

¶31

4 7-WP 9092-21.odt

¶32

the interim order of the Joint Charity Commissioner, which contention is
disputed by learned Counsel for the Petitioners.

¶33

6.Having heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners, learned
Counsel for the Respondent No.1-Pune Municipal Corporation and learned
Counsel for the Respondent No.2-Developer, in our view, the following
order would meet the ends of justice :-

¶34

ORDER

¶35

(i)We record the statement of the learned Counsel

¶36

for the Respondent No.2-Developer, on instructions, that
the Respondent No.2-Developer shall not carry out any
construction work in the subject property, unless the order
dated 4th October, 2017 of the Joint Charity Commissioner
is vacated and/or set aside. We accept the statement of
learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2-Developer as an
undertaking of the Respondent No.2-Developer to this
Court.

¶37

(ii)We direct the Commissioner of the Respondent

¶38

No.1-Pune Municipal Corporation to take a decision on

¶39

4 of 5

¶40

Mugdha

¶41

5 7-WP 9092-21.odt

¶42

the letter dated 31st December, 2020 of the Petitioner-
Trust through their Advocate (Exhibit ‘L’, Page 155 to the
Petition), which shall be treated as a representation,
expeditiously, and in any event within twelve weeks from
today. The Petitioners are also permitted to file an
additional representation within ten days from today. The
Respondent No.1-Pune Municipal Corporation shall grant
an opportunity to the Respondent No.2-Developer to
reply/respond to the letters/representations of the
Petitioners.

¶43

(iii)The Writ Petition to stand disposed of in the
aforesaid terms.

¶44

(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)(A.A. SAYED, J.)

¶45

Digitally signed by MUGDHA MUGDHA M M PARANJAPE PARANJAPE Date: 2021.12.22 10:35:44 +0530

¶46

5 of 5

¶47

Mugdha

F.N.Social, Educational Medical Charities Trust through Its Trustees Lazarus S. Chinnappa and Anr. v. Pune Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

F.N.Social, Educational Medical Charities Trust through Its Trustees Lazarus S. Chinnappa and Anr. v. Pune Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sakhubai Bhikaji Ahire and Anr. Vs the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and Anr.

Sandeep Ghate and Anr. Vs Assistant Engineer in Mcgm and 2 Ors.

Ekramul Hasan Abdul Hameed Momin Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ashish Mulji Shah Vs State of Maharashtra through Office of Govt. Pleader

Mithanagar Kaveri Chsl Vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and 5 Ors.

Mr. Shirish Bhaskar Sathaye Vs the Nashik Municipal Corporation through Its Municipal Commissioner and Anr.