Prem Bhaskar Shetty vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 18034 Bom

         Digitally
         signed by
SONALI   SONALI
         MILIND PATIL
MILIND   Date:
PATIL    2021.12.25
         16:37:33
         +0530
                                         1/2
                                                             p-WPST-26041-2021.doc
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                         WRIT PETITION NO. 9517 OF 2021
         Prema Bhaskar Shetty                            ... Petitioner
                    V/s.
         The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                 ... Respondents

                                    ........
         Mr. Ram Mani Upadhyay for the Petitioner.
                                    ........

                                 CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

(VACATION COURT)

DATE : 25th DECEMBER, 2021 P.C:-

1. Heard Mr. Ram Mani Upadhyay, learned counsel for the Petitioner.

2. The matter is moved apprehending demolition of the Petitioner's structure. Earlier the Writ Petition was directed to be accepted for filing and it was further directed to keep the matter on Monday i.e. on 27th December, 2021. However, thereafter, Mr. Upadhyay mentioned the matter in the chamber. He submitted that there is apprehension that the structure will be demolished either on Sunday or Monday. No notice of this mentioning has been given to the Respondents. He submitted that the notice of demolition which is at page 12 states that the structure to be demolished within a period of one month is illegal and relied on judgment of this Court (Nagpur Bench) reported in 2015 (4) Mh.

Sonali

p-WPST-26041-2021.doc L.J. 836 in the matter between Kishor S/o. Ramalu @ Rambhau Telang Vs. The Municipal Commissioner. He also pointed out paragraph 19 in the plaint bearing R.C. Suit No. 830 of 2021 wherein, it is specifically stated that the Plaintiff has submitted application on 26th November, 2021 for regularization of the said shop. When Advocate Upadhyay was asked to produce said application for regularization dated 26th November, 2021, he expressed his inability saying that the documents are not with him. In any case, filing of regularization application itself shows that the structure is not authorized.

3. The Respondents are not served.

4. On the admission of the Petitioner herself that the structure is not authorized, no prima facie case is made out and therefore, no reliefs at this stage.

5. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner to serve the Respondents and file affidavit of service before the returnable date.

6. Stand over to 27th January, 2022.

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

Sonali