Bombay High Court
Gic Housing Finance Ltd vs The Asst. Municipal Commissioner on 15 June, 2017
Bench: A.S. Oka
sng 1 wp-1111.15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1111 OF 2015
GIC Housing Finance Ltd. .. Petitioner
Vs
The Asst. Municipal Commissioner. .. Respondent
-
Shri Sanjiv Punalekar along with Shri Dharma Raj i/b PRS Legal for the
Petitioner.
Ms.Vandana Mahadik for the Respondent.
-
CORAM : A.S. OKA &
SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, JJ
DATED : 15TH JUNE 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT ( PER A.S. OKA, J)
1. Rule. The Advocate for the Respondents waives service.
Considering the narrow controversy involved in this Petition, the same
can be disposed of finally at the stage of admission.
2. Initially, a notice under Section 354A of the Mumbai
Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short "the said Act") was issued to
the Petitioner alleging that the Petitioner was carrying out unauthorized
construction of full height wooden partition forming cabins as shown in
the sketch forming a part of the notice in red colour located at 6 th floor
::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:12:37 :::
sng 2 wp-1111.15
of Royal Insurance Building, near J.Tata Road, Churchgate, Mumbai -
400 020. It appears that on 9 th May 2014, a notice under Section 351
of the said Act was issued to the Petitioner alleging unauthorized
construction of full height wooden partition forming cabins on the 6 th
floor of the premises as shown in the sketch. On 28 th May 2014, an
order under Section 351 of the said Act was passed by the Designated
Officer directing removal of full height wooden partition forming cabin
as shown in the sketch.
3. It appears that an Application for regularization was
submitted by the Petitioner through its Architect on 2 nd June 2014. By a
letter dated 16th April 2015, the Petitioner was called upon to produce
certain documents. The Petitioner's Architect, on 11th April 2015
submitted various documents listed therein except No Objection
Certificate of the Heritage Committee. A request was made to the
Mumbai Municipal Corporation not to insist on the production of such
No Objection Certificate.
4. There is an additional affidavit filed by the Petitioner of
Shri Nayan Eknath Ghag dated 27 th November 2015. A copy of the No
Objection Certificate dated 27th May 27th May 2015 issued by the
Mumbai Heritage Conservation Committee is annexed to the said
affidavit. By a letter dated 8 th October 2015, the Municipal Corporation
::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:12:37 :::
sng 3 wp-1111.15
called upon the Petitioner's Architect to submit a No Objection
Certificate of the Chief Fire Brigade Officer and Structural Engineer's
Certificate. Necessary documents were forwarded by the Petitioner's
Architect along with a letter dated 3 rd November 2015 to the Municipal
Corporation.
5. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the
Respondents produced a copy of the letter dated 27 th April 2015
addressed by the Assistant Engineer of the Municipal Corporation to the
Petitioner's Architect. Her submission is that the said letter clearly
records that the Application for regularization has been rejected. We
have perused the said letter. It merely records that a proposal for
regularization dated 2nd June 2014 has been recorded and a notice
under Section 351 of the said Act will be processed further. The said
letter does not amount to a communication of rejection of the proposal.
Moreover, the letter dated 27th May 2015 addressed by the Deputy
Municipal Architect to the Petitioner's Architect records the subject of
the letter as proposed regularization. The letter refers to regularization
of erected full height wooden partitions. It records that Mumbai
Heritage Conservation Committee has granted No Objection Certificate.
In fact, by a letter dated 8th October 2015, the Assistant Engineer (B&F).
'A' Ward called upon the Petitioner's Architect to produce additional
documents which are submitted by the Petitioner's Architect on 3 rd
::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:12:37 :::
sng 4 wp-1111.15
November 2015. Hence, we cannot accept the submission of the
learned counsel appearing for the Respondents that the proposal for
regularization has been rejected.
6. Hence, we dispose of the Petition by passing the following
order:
ORDER :
(a) We direct the appropriate Authority of the Mumbai
Municipal Corporation to consider proposal dated 2 nd
June 2014 submitted by the Petitioner through its
Architect Shri Rashmin Bhandare as well as
documents submitted along with the letter dated 3 rd
November 2015 and to take a final decision on the
said proposal as expeditiously as possible and in any
event within a period of two months from today;
(b) The decision taken on the proposal shall be
communicated to the Petitioner's Architect;
(c) Action of demolition on the basis of the notice under
Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation
sng 5 wp-1111.15
Act, 1888 shall not be taken till the date of
communication of the order to the Petitioner's
Architect;
(d) If Application for regularization is rejected,
protection granted as aforesaid shall continue to
operate for a period of one month from the date on
the order is served to the Petitioner's Architect;
(e) We have made no adjudication on the merits of the
proposal of regularization;
(f) Rule is partly made absolute on above terms.
(SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI, J) ( A.S. OKA, J )
