Bombay High Court
Prabhodhan Sanstha, Chandrapur ... vs The Collector, Chandrapur And 2 ... on 27 June, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
wp6363.15.odt 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.6363 OF 2015
PETITIONER: Prabhodhan Samnstha, a Public
Trust, having Registration No.NF
4178/93 Siddham Shettiwar Layout,
Tadala Road, Mul, District:
Chandrapur through its President
Vijay Prabhakar Siddhawar.
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENTS: 1. The Collector, Chandrapur.
2. Municipal Council, through its Chief
ig Officer, Mul, Tahsil Mul, District:
Chandrapur.
Shri A. S. Kilor, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri K. L. Dharmadhikar, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent No.1.
Shri M. I. Dhatrak, Advocate for respondent No.2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
DATED: 27
th JUNE, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. In view of notice for final disposal, the learned Counsel
for the parties have been heard at length.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18-11-
2015 passed by the Collector, Chandrapur in exercise of power
under Section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils Nagar
Panchayats and Industrial Township Act, 1965. In para 19 of the
writ petition, it has been pleaded that though remedy of filing of
revision application is available to the petitioner, as according to
wp6363.15.odt 2/3
the petitioner the impugned order has been passed without
hearing him and by exceeding jurisdiction vested under Section
308 of the said Act, the petitioner has filed the present writ
petition.
3. Shri M. I. Dhatrak, the learned Counsel appearing for
the respondent no.2 raised a preliminary objection that an
alternate remedy of preferring a revision application under Section
318 of the said Act ought to be availed. This submission is
supported by Shri K. L. Dharmadhikari, the learned Assistant
Government Pleader for the respondent No.1.
4. After hearing the respective Counsel, I find that there
is a dispute with regard to the aspect as to whether the petitioner
was heard before the impugned order was passed. While it is the
case of the petitioner that on 17-11-2015 he had sought time of
seven days for responding to the proceedings before the Collector,
the record indicates that the impugned order has been passed on
18-11-2015 by observing that the petitioner was heard before
passing the same.
5. This aspect as to whether the petitioner was heard or
not before the impugned order was passed is a material factor
which is required to be adjudicated after perusing the record.
While issuing notice, this Court had granted interim relief in
wp6363.15.odt 3/3
favour of the petitioner with a direction that the nature of the
existing construction should not be changed.
6. In the aforesaid facts, while upholding the preliminary
objection as adjudication of some facts would be necessary, the
interim protection granted in favour of the petitioner deserves to
be continued to enable the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy.
7. In view of aforesaid, if the petitioner prefers a revision
application under Section 318 of the said Act within a period of
three weeks from today, the ad interim relief that was granted on
26-11-2015 shall continue to operate for a period of four weeks
from today. It would be open for the revisional authority to
consider the prayer for interim relief in said proceedings in
accordance with law. If the revision application is so preferred,
the same shall be decided expeditiously. The contentions of the
respective parties on merits are kept open. As the impugned
direction requires the petitioner to remove the existing
construction, if any order adverse to the interests of the petitioner
is passed, the same shall not be given effect to for a period of
fifteen days from the date of communication of the said order. The
petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms. No costs.
JUDGE
//MULEY//
