Writ Petition No. 832 of 2010 · Bombay High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- T V NALAWADE
Provisions considered
Judgment
Shri M.S.Choudhari, Adv. for petr. Shri K.G.Patil, AGP for State. Shri Rajendra Deshmukh, Adv.for R.4 Shri M.K.Deshpande, Adv.for R.5. .... CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & T.V.NALAWADE,JJ. DATE : 5/04/2011 1] The petitioner seeks direction to take necessary action under the provisions of Sections 52,53 & 54 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 against respondents 5 & 6. 2] The petitioner refers to notice issued by the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation dated 27/7/2009 Exh-E. The affidavits in reply have been filed by the respondents. 2 criwp832-10 3] Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for Aurangabad Municipal Corporation submits that by communication dated 21/2/2011, the Corporation has issued further notice addressed to Sow. Ashabai Parmeshwar Panad under the provisions of Section 478 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. Under the said communication, it was informed to respondent no.5 that her application for regularization of unauthorized construction under Gunthewari Act, has been rejected by the Corporation.
The Corporation thereafter, issued a 15 days notice to the respondent no.5, indicating that the said unauthorized construction would be demolished. 4] Respondent Ashabai Panad filed Civil Suit No.28/11 before the Court (Aurangabad Municipal Corporation Court) challenging the notice issued by the Corporation dated 21/2/2011 and for grant of injunction. 5] Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel submits that the trial Court rejected the injunction application of the petitioner, against which an Appeal has been preferred in the District Court bearing Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.63/11. By an order dated 21/3/2011, the lower appellate Court had 3 criwp832-10 ordered for maintaining status quo and issued notice to respondents therein with interim order of status quo. 6] Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel submits that in case respondent Ashabai fails in the Reference before Civil Court to obtain interim order/injunction against respondent-Corporation in respect of the subject construction then, the Corporation would take effective steps consequent to notice dated 21/2/11.
7] In case petitioner desires to proceed against the respondent Ashabai in respect of criminal prosecution, petitioner may resort to appropriate remedies as permissible in law. In the light of the same, no further observations or directions are required to be passed by this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. The Petition is disposed of. [T.V.NALAWADE,J.] (NARESH H.PATIL,J.] umg/criwp832-10 4 criwp832-10
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.