Anju Pawan Saraf & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 10 May 2010
- Bench
- R M SAVANT
Outcome
Disposed of
Petition is disposed off in the above terms
Provisions considered
Judgment
Mr.Vishwajeet Savant a/w Mr.Hitesh Jain,. Mr.Subhash Jadhav and Mr.Daljeet Bhatia i.b M/s ALMT Legal for Petitioners Mr.Rajiv Mane AGP for Respondent No.1 Mr.R.Y.Sirsikar for Respondent nos. 2 to 10 ... CORAM: R.M.SAVANT & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ (Vacation Judges) DATE: 10th May,2010 P.C.
The above petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the notice dated 13th April, 2010 issued by the respondent no.2-Corporation. The said notice has been issued under section 53 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.(herein referred to as M.R.T.P.Act). The notice “calls upon the petitioners to demolish the door constructed in the common passage of the building.” The petitioners - 2 - have challenged the notice inter-alia on various grounds which have been urged in the petition. The petitioners have questioned the applicability of section 53 of the M.R.T.P.Act. It is also the case of the petitioners that the said terrace in respect of whose door the notice has been given belongs to the petitioners and is a private terrace.
We need not go into the merits of the various contentions raised by the petitioners. Suffice it to say that the petitioners by their letter dated 26th April, 2010 have replied to the same. The scheme of section 53 of the M.R.T.P.Act mandates that the planning authority is obligated to consider the said reply filed by the petitioners and pending such consideration in terms of section 53 (3) of the M.R.T.P.Act no further precipitative steps are required to be taken in respect of the alleged unauthorized construction.
Learned counsel for the respondent no.2- Corporation fairly states that the proceedings pursuant to the notice would be disposed of within a period of eight weeks of the submission of the additional document/documents by the petitioners and - 3 - and they would be intimated the order that would be passed by the respondent no.2-Corporation. The petitioners would be at liberty to file additional document/documents if not already filed in support of their case within two weeks from date.
The respondent no.2-Corporation will also personally hear the petitioners by fixing a schedule for the same. All the contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.
Operative part
In the event the respondent No.2-Corporation passes an order which is adverse to the petitioners, the same would not be given effect to for a period of two weeks to enable the petitioners to adopt appropriate proceedings in that behalf. Petition is disposed off in the above terms. MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J R.M.SAVANT, J - 4 -
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Petition is disposed off in the above terms
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 10 May 2010. 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.