J.C.Kondiyal & Ors. v. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 09 Oct 2009
- Bench
- R M SAVANT
Provisions considered
Judgment
Mr.Sachin Dhakephalkar a/w.Mr.Ajay Patil, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr.A.A.Garge, Advocate, for the respondents CORAM : S.B.MHASE & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 9TH OCTOBER, 2009 P.C. . Rule with the consent of parties made returnable, forthwith and heard.
This Writ Petition has been filed invoking our Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners seek a relief that the respondents be restrained from acting in furtherence of the notices (Exh.A colly.) 2 issued to them under Section 53 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 by the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 is the Planning Authority which has issued the said notices for certain alleged unauthorized construction and alterations made by the petitioners in the premises in their occupation. The petitioners have filed a joint representation which is annexed to the above Writ Petition as (cid:28) Exhibit B(cid:29) . As per the Scheme contained in Section 53 of the said Act, the Planning Authority has to hear and dispose of the representation of the petitioners and objections raised to the notices. Pending such consideration the mere notice itself shall not affect the retention of buildings or works or the continuance of such use.
We, therefore, direct respondent No.1 to dispose of the representation of the petitioners and the objections, if any, raised by them after giving an opportunity of hearing to the 3 petitioners. The petitioners would be entitled to produce the documents in support of their case. The petitioners would also be entitled to be heard by the Competent Officer of respondent No.1. The petitioners would also be entitled to make a further representation including one for regularization within a period of two weeks from date.
The petitioners would co-operate in the disposal of the matter by the Competent Authority of respondent No.1.
The Competent Authority is directed to hear the petitioners on their representation and dispose of the same within a period of three months from date. It is made clear that the petitioners' representation would be heard as it is not possible to hear the petitioners personally.
Pending such disposal, the parties are 4 directed to maintain status-quo in respect of the structure in question.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 — s. 53.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 09 Oct 2009. The bench was R M SAVANT.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.