Disposed

Chandrakant Shankar Pawar and 14 Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and Anr.

Bombay HC23 Sept 2024WP/3999/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged MCGM Appellate Authority orders holding them ineligible for failing to show occupation of premises on or before 1 January 2020, producing additional documents by affidavit. The Court quashed the orders and remitted the matters for fresh hearing with all merits kept open.

What did the court decide?

Impugned eligibility orders dated 9 November 2020 quashed; petitioners to appear before Appellate Authority on 15 October 2024 with affidavits and documents for fresh adjudication.

Chandrakant Shankar Pawar and 14 Ors. vs Municipal… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

907-WP-3999-2024.DOC

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3999 OF 2024

¶5

Chandrakant Shankar Pawar & Ors. …Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Anr. …Respondents

¶8

Mr. S. K. Dubey, Advocate, for the Petitioners.

¶9

Ms. Shweta Patankar, Advocate, for the Respondent No.1-MCGM. Mr. Shubham Patil JE(Maintenance), L Ward, for the Respondent No.1-MCGM

¶10

Ms. Jyoti Chavan, Addl. G.P., a/w. Mr. Manish Upadhye, AGP, for the Respondent No.2.

¶11

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 1^st OCTOBER 2024

¶12

P. C.:

¶13

Heard Mr. Dubey, learned Counsel appearing for the

¶14

Petitioners, Ms. Shweta Patankar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1-MCGM and Ms. Jyoti Chavan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Respondent No.2-State.

¶15

By the present Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is to the legality and validity of individual order dated 9^th November 2020 passed by the Committee consisting of Colony Officer, L Ward, Executive

Page 1 of 4

Sonali

907-WP-3999-2024.DOC

Engineer, L Ward and Assistant Commissioner, L Ward (“Appellate Authority”) in case of each of the Petitioner holding that the Petitioners are not eligible.

¶20

The impugned order has been passed only on the ground that the Petitioners failed to produce documents showing the occupation of the concerned premises in question on or before 1^st January 2020.

¶21

However, in the present Writ Petition, each of the Petitioners have filed individual affidavits and produced on record several documents.

¶22

Mr. Dubey, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners states that some of the documents were produced before the Appellate Authority, however, other documents could not be produced earlier. He submits that in the interest of justice, the impugned order dated 9^th November 2020 be quashed and set aside and the matter be remitted to the Appellate Authority.

¶23

Digitally signed by SONALI SONALI MILIND MILIND PATIL PATIL Date: 2024.10.03 09:36:41 +0530

Page 2 of 4

Sonali

907-WP-3999-2024.DOC

As it is the contention of the Petitioners that some of the documents could not be produced earlier before the Appellate Authority which supports the claim of the Petitioners about their eligibility, for giving appropriate opportunity to the Petitioners, the following order is passed:

¶28

ORDER

¶29

(a) The respective impugned order dated 9^th November 2020 passed by the Appellate Authority in case of respective Petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶30

(b) The Petitioners to appear before the Appellate Authority on 15^th October 2024 at 3:00 p.m. On that date, the Petitioners to file their respective affidavits along with the documents before the Appellate Authority.

¶31

(c) The Appellate Authority after hearing the Petitioners, to pass the order with respect to the eligibility of each of the Petitioner.

Page 3 of 4

Sonali

907-WP-3999-2024.DOC

(d) The Appellate Authority is requested to dispose of the respective Appeals expeditiously.

¶36

(e) It is clarified that this Court has not considered the merits and all contentions on merits are expressly kept open.

¶37

The Writ Petition is disposed of in above terms with no order

¶38

as to costs.

¶39

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

¶40

Page 4 of 4

¶41

Sonali

Chandrakant Shankar Pawar and 14 Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrakant Shankar Pawar and 14 Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and Anr.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pushpalata S. Sharma vs Brij Madanlal Sharma and Ors.

Dipl Ingenieure Rainer and Oliver Puls Gmbh Germany vs Force Motors Limited India

Shri. Sukumar Tayappa Kolap vs Shri. Raosaheb Vasant Waghmare

Narang Realty Pvt. Ltd. vs Celsia Bocarro and 15 Ors.

Cynthia Pinheiro vs the District Deputy Registrar

Hdfc Bank Limited vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II