Dismissed

Himaanshu Vijay Chande v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai through the Municipal Commissioner

Bombay HC8 Mar 2024IA/632/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected an interim application for restoration of a writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution. The court found no sufficient explanation for the delay of over a year between dismissal and the application for restoration, noting the petitioner's lack of vigilance in monitoring the case status.

What the court decided

AI extract

Himaanshu Vijay Chande Vs Municipal Corporation… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

904-OSIWP-632-2024.DOC

¶2

Sumedh

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 632 OF 2024

¶4

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 299 OF 2017

¶6

Himaanshu Vijay Chande ...Applicant In the matter between Himaanshu Vijay Chande …Petitioner Versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors …Respondents

¶7

Mr Sushant D Chavan , for the Applicant. Mr Anil Sakhare, Senior Advocate , i/b Ritesh Singh, for Respondent No 5.

¶8

Mr Kunal Waghmare , for the Respondent-MCGM.

¶9

CORAM G.S. Patel & Kamal Khata, JJ. DATED: 8th March 2024

¶10

PC:-

¶11

1. This Interim Application is for restoration of the Writ Petition No 299 of 2017. It was dismissed for want of prosecution on 13th March 2023.

¶12

SUMEDH NAMDEO SONAWANE

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMEDH NAMDEO SONAWANE Date: 2024.03.11 10:56:48 +0530

¶14

Page 1 of 3 8th March 2024

¶15

904-OSIWP-632-2024.DOC

¶16

2. The reason suggested orally before us for seeking restoration was that the Advocate for the Applicant/Petitioner was in personal difoculty. It is claimed that there was a medical emergency. However, paragraph 12 gives a different story. It says that on that date only one of the two companion Petitions were listed but there was no entry in the advocate’s case diary. That is no ground. Our cause lists are not tied to advocates’ case diaries. There are online digital cause lists and these are known in advance. There is a system of alerts.

¶17

3. The Petitioner claims that he did not learn of this dismissal until later. There is not a word of explanation in the Interim Application for the delay between 13th March 2023 and 6th February 2024 when the Interim Application was filed, except to say that the Petitioner/Applicant learnt of the order of dismissal only when the Petitioner visited the premises on 5th February 2004 and found the shutters damaged or broken. Why the Petitioner waited a full year to visit the premises is unknown. When that action was taken against the shutters is unknown.

¶18

4. The IA does not explain why the Petitioner was not sufociently vigilant. It does not explain why from 13th March 2023 till 5th February 2024 the Petitioner did not visit the premises in question. To say that on 5th February 2024 the Petitioner found the shutters of the garage in question broken means nothing.

¶19

5. Municipal actions against structures cannot continuously be defeated like this.

¶20

Page 2 of 3

¶21

8th March 2024

¶22

904-OSIWP-632-2024.DOC

¶23

6. The Interim Application is rejected.

¶24

(Kamal Khata, J)

¶25

(G. S. Patel, J)

¶26

Page 3 of 3 8th March 2024

Himaanshu Vijay Chande v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai through the Municipal Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Himaanshu Vijay Chande v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai through the Municipal Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nish Developers P Ltd. Vs Nareshkumar Shantilal Jain and Ors.

Vishnu Hariba Dhavle and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary, Dept. of Housing and Ors.

Yasin Esmail Gulam Hussain Esmail Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Madhuri Vijay Chande Vs Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and 4 Ors.

Shanti Dharma Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra

Harsha K. Shah Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 4 Ors.