Pradeepkumar Nanalal vs The Municipal Commissioner And ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 66 Bom

                                                                     WP. 1889-16.doc


VPH

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                              WRIT PETITION No. 1889 OF 2016


      Pradeepkumar Nanalal                           ...        Petitioner
             Vs.
      The Municipal Commissioner,
      MCGM & Anr.                                    ...        Respondents

                                           ***
      Mr. Digjmaan Mishra i/b V. S. Pande, for the Petitioner.
      Ms. Shital Mane, for Respondent No. 1 - MCGM
      Ms. Megha Shigavan, h/f Mohit Jadhav, for the Respondent No. 2.

                                           ***

                                             CORAM : A. S. OKA, &
                                                     P. N. DESHMUKH, JJ.

DATE : JANUARY 4, 2018

ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER : A. S. OKA, J.]

1. Rule. Learned advocate Ms. Shital Mane waives service

of notice for Respondent No. 1. The learned advocate Ms. Megha

Shigavan waives service of notice for Respondent No. 2. Considering

the limited controversy, petition is immediately taken up for final

disposal.

WP. 1889-16.doc

2. The Petitioner is claiming to be a tenant of the second

Respondent in respect of the premises, more particularly described in

paragraph 1 of the petition. The case of the Petitioner is that the

second Respondent has carried out illegal conversion of residential

premises into commercial premises and illegal structural changes have

been made. The Petitioner is relying upon the representations made in

that behalf to the first Respondent, the copies of which have been

annexed at Exhibits "C" & "D" to the petition. The grievance raised

in the petition is that no action has been taken on the basis of said

representations. The learned counsel appearing for the first

Respondent has no instructions. The learned counsel for the second

Respondent, on instructions, states that second Respondent has not

indulged in any illegal activities, as alleged in the petition.

3. In view of the aforesaid statements, we dispose of the

petition and pass following order.

(i) We direct the Designated Officer or any other Officer

nominated by the Designated Officer of the concerned Ward

to visit the subject building, after giving notice to the

Petitioner and the second Respondent, with a view to

WP. 1889-16.doc

ascertain whether there is any substance in the allegations

made by the Petitioner as regards the illegal change of user

and illegal construction / structural changes;

(ii) Site inspection shall be carried out within a period of three

weeks from the date on which this order is uploaded;

(iii) If the Officer finds that there is substance in the allegations

made by the Petitioner, he shall take a decision and initiate

appropriate action in that behalf, as expeditiously as

possible. The decision taken by the Officer after site

inspection shall be communicated to the Petitioner and the

second Respondent within a period of six weeks from the

date on which this order is uploaded;

(iv) Needless to state that in the event the Designated Officer

initiates action in respect of any illegal construction, the

demolition of illegal structures shall not be carried out

without giving an opportunity of being heard to the second

Respondent as well as other persons affected thereby;

(v) We make it clear that we have not made any adjudication on

WP. 1889-16.doc

merits;

(vi) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

(vii) All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

                              Sd/-                                                   Sd/-
                   [P. N. DESHMUKH, J.]                                       [A. S. OKA, J.]
Vinayak Halemath