Saturday, 02, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Cogent Enterprises Ltd. Company vs Lonavala Municipal Council And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 2151 Bom

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 2151 Bom
Judgement Date : 3 May, 2017

Bombay High Court
Cogent Enterprises Ltd. Company vs Lonavala Municipal Council And ... on 3 May, 2017
Bench: Naresh H. Patil
                                               1
                                                                             p-501-wp-5383-17

pdp

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                            WRIT PETITION NO. 5383 OF 2017

      Cogent Enterprises Ltd.                                     .. Petitioner

                    Versus

      1. Lonavala Municipal Council and ors.                      .. Respondents

      Mr. Atul Damale, Sr. Advocate with Samji Joseph and Somnath Gaikwad
      i/by Uni Lex for petitioner.
      Mr. A. A. Garge for respondent nos.1 to 3.

                             CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL &
                                    DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, JJ.

MAY 03, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Naresh H. Patil,J) :

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner prays for setting aside the notice dated

24/4/2017 under Section 53(1) of the Maharashtra Regonal Town Planning

Act, 1966, issued by the Lonavala Municipal Council.

p-501-wp-5383-17

3. By an order dated 26/7/2016 the Division Bench of this Court

(Coram: Ranjit More and Anuja Prabhudessai,JJ) disposed of the Writ

Petition No. 8578 of 2016, filed by the present petitioner, with certain

directions. Para 5 of the said order read as under:-

"5. In the interests of justice, during the pendency and till

the disposal of the petitioner's application for regularization,

both the parties to the petition shall maintain status-quo as of

today regarding the offending structure which is the subject

matter of the notice under challenge."

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits

that the application is still kept pending by the respondent no. 1- Council.

Instead, the respondent no.1 issued impugned notice dated 24/4/2017

(annexed at page 21 of the petition) for demolition of the subject structure.

The petitioner prays for following substantive relief:

"(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to set aside the Notice dated 24/4/2017 as illegal, bad in law;

(b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ in the nature of `mandamus' or any other nature as the Hon'ble

p-501-wp-5383-17

deem fit and proper directing the respondents not to take any further action on the basis of the impugned notice dated 24/04/2017 and not to demolish the structure till decision on the application for approval of revised plan submitted on 05/08/2016;

(c) That show-cause notice for Contempt for Court may be issued against all respondents;

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondents - Council, on

instructions from Mr. Pramod Punaji Dhanke, Assistant Town Planner,

Lonavala, who is present in court, submits that Assistant Director, Town

Planner, Pune Region, Pune informed about the deficiencies in the proposal

by communication dated 21/11/2016. Learned counsel also refers to

further communication dated 27/7/2016, based on which the respondents-

Council issued the impugned notice under Section 53(1) of the MRTP Act,

1966.

6. It is surprising to note that though the Division Bench of this

court issued direction on 26/7/2016 in Writ Petition No. 8578 of 2016,

respondents-Council still issued the impugned notice dated 24/4/2017

informing the petitioner that subject structure would be demolished. The

petitioner, therefore, prayed for issuance of show-cause notice for

p-501-wp-5383-17

contempt against the respondents. Instead of issuing notice at this stage,

we direct the Chief Officer of the Lonavala Municipal Council to call for

explanation from the officer who signed the impugned notice issued to the

petitioner.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-Council

submits that decision shall be taken on the proposal / application for

regularization filed by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and not

later than four weeks from today.

8. In view of the statement made as above and directions given,

we quash and set aside the impugned notice dated 24/4/2017 issued by the

respondents-Council under Section 53(1) of the MRTP Act, 1966.

9. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

10. Registry to forward a copy of this judgment to the Principal

Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

(DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI,J.) (NARESH H. PATIL,J.)

p-501-wp-5383-17

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter