Parbhani City Municipal ... vs Sunil Gulabrao Deokar
2016 Latest Caselaw 3488 Bom

                                         1                   WP-3406.16.doc




                                                                         
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                 
                          WRIT PETITION NO. 3406 OF 2016


     Parbhani City Municipal Corporation




                                                
     Parbhani, Through its Deputy Commissioner
     Ranjeet Annasaheb Patil,
     Age: 37 years, Occu. Service,
     R/o. Parbhani                                        ... Petitioner




                                       
              VERSUS

     Sunil Gulabrao Deokar
                             
     Age: 35 years, Occu. Business,
     R/o. Near Civil Hospital,
                            
     Parbhani                                             ... Respondent

                                   .....
     Mr. Satyajit S. Bora, Advocate for the petitioner
     Mr. Arvind S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the respondent
      

                                   .....
   



                                   CORAM :   SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.

DATE : 29th JUNE, 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard with

consent of learned advocates for the parties, finally.

2. The petitioner-corporation is before this court against an

interlocutory order dated 16th January, 2016 on application

2 WP-3406.16.doc

Exhibit-5 in Municipal Appeal No.4 of 2015 passed by the

Ad-hoc District Judge-1 Parbhani, whereunder, the operation

of order dated 11th December, 2015 passed by Commissioner,

Municipal Corporation, Parbhani, is stayed till final decision of

appeal. Effectively, the order transcends to de-sealing of the

premises which were sealed way back in 2013.

3. It is the contention of the respondent that by virtue of

various agreements ig executed from time to time and

particularly one which had been entered into in 2009,

property bearing shops No. 171 and 172 situated at site

No.100 in the Parbhani city has been leased out to

respondent. In respect of the premises let out to respondent

various permissions for running business over the same have

been acquired.

4. According to Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the

respondent, the corporation refers to notice dated 5 th October,

2013 and panchanama dated 9th October, 2013, under which

the hotel premises has been sealed. This, according to

learned counsel, is in breach of the provisions, particularly

Section 81 A and B of the Bombay Provincial Municipal

Corporation Act, 1949 and since the provisions have not been

3 WP-3406.16.doc

followed and the action affects the respondent retrospectively,

the impugned order, which has been passed without having

regard to the provisions of law and is arbitrary.

5. Whereas, learned advocate Mr. Bora for the petitioner

submits that instead of going into various aspects involved in

the matter, it would be pertinent to note that premises have

been sealed since 2013 and under an interim application in

appeal which is pending for final disposal, issue would stand

decided. He submits that the appeal is open for contest and

there are various grounds upon which the action can be

justified. He therefore submits that instead of rendering the

judgment on merits, the situation can be taken care of at this

stage by issuing directions to the appellate authority to decide

Municipal Appeal itself expeditiously.

6. The request on behalf of the petitioner appears to be

reasonable.

7. As such, the writ petition is disposed of with directions

to appellate authority to decide the pending Municipal Appeal

No. 4 of 2015 as early as possible, preferably within a period

of fortnight from the date of receipt of writ of this order.

4 WP-3406.16.doc

8. In the meanwhile, the effect and operation of the

impugned order in the present petition shall be kept in

abeyance and its efficacy would depend on decision in appeal.

9. Rule stands discharged.

( SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J. )

sms