Shreepal Jain And 22 Ors vs Municipal Commissioner For Gr. ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 6182 Bom

                                                                      (15) WP 1881-15.doc

DDR

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                           WRIT PETITION NO. 1881 OF 2015

       Shreepal Jain & Others                         .. Petitioners
            Vs.
       Municipal Corporation of Greater
       Mumbai & others                                .. Respondents
                                    ............
       None for the Petitioners.
       Ms. Pallavi Thakar, for Respondent nos. 1 to 5 and 7- M.C.G.M.
                                    ............

                                                         CORAM : B.R.GAVAI & 
                                                                       M.S. KARNIK, JJ.

DATED: 16TH AUGUST, 2017

P.C. :

When the matter was listed before this Court on

9/8/2017, none appeared for the petitioners, matter was called

out twice, as such we have directed that the matter be placed

today for dismissal.

2. Today also none appears for the petitioners. From the

prayer clause it reveals that the petitioners have sought a

direction to the respondent nos. 1 to 5 and 7 not to issue

occupation certificate in respect of the new building constructed

on the plot mentioned in the prayer clause. The petitioners have

(15) WP 1881-15.doc

also prayed for a direction to respondent no.10 owner to comply

with the statutory obligation of keeping the petitioners' access

free of obstruction and maintain three meter compulsory open

space all around the building. The respondent-corporation can

issue an occupation certificate only after being satisfied that the

building constructed has been constructed in accordance with

sanctioned plan. It is also statutory duty of the respondent-

corporation to ensure that the building constructed has

maintained all the margins, as required under MMC Act.

3. We therefore find that the present petition is pre-

mature in nature and is therefore dismissed. Needless to state

that in the event the petitioners find that either an occupation

certificate has been granted in illegal manner or the respondent

has not kept the said margins as required in the DCR, the

petitioners are at liberty to take steps as permissible in law. The

Petition is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

     (M.S. KARNIK, J.)                             ( B.R.GAVAI, J.)