Jawaharlal Raghuveer Singh, Thr. ... vs The Asst. Municipal Commissioner
2021 Latest Caselaw 2607 Bom

Chitra Sonawane                                                 24-AOST-2748-2021.doc


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

              INTERIM APPLICATION [STAMP] 2749 OF 2021
                                           IN
             APPEAL FROM ORDER [STAMP] NO.2748 OF 2021


    Jawaharlal Raghuveer Singh                     ] .... Appellant.

                       Vs.

    The Asst.Municipal Commissioner & ]
    Others                            ] ... Respondents.


                              .....
    Mr.Ansari Asggar Kalim for appellant/applicant.

    Ms. Madhuri More, Advocate for the respondent/MCGM.
                            ......

                                         CORAM : PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.

DATE : 9TH FEBRUARY, 2021.

P.C.:

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant.

2. The learned City Civil Court, by impugned order dated 28 th January 2021 refused ad-interim relief. Paragraph Nos.8 and 9 of the impugned Judgment reads thus:

1 / 3

Chitra Sonawane 24-AOST-2748-2021.doc

8. The plaintiff has submitted the application for regularisation on 1.12.2020 and by defendant no.3 on 19.12.2020. It is an admitted fact that defendant No.3 is erecting the mobile tower, as it is the service provider company. It is nowhere the case of the plaintiff that he has carried out the alleged construction and he is erecting mobile tower. As per clause no.3 and 4 of the circular dated 16.10.2014 and Notification dated 4.3.2014 alongwith Schedule 'A' annexed to it, produced by defendant nos.1 and 2, it prima facie appears that the service provider company has to submit the application/proposal to E.E.B.P.(Special) Office through duly appointed Architect/licensed surveyor in the prescribed format. The said circulars are not disputed by the learned advocate for the plaintiff. Thus, it prima facie appears that the service provider, which in the present case is defendant no.3, has to apply for permission. It also appears that defendant no.3 has not submitted the application/proposal for regularisation online. Surprisingly, defendant no.3 who is erecting the mobile tower and who is the service provider, is not coming forward seeking appropriate relief against the MCGM in this regard.

9. In the present case also, though, defendant no.3 has been served, it failed to appear. This shows that defendant no.3 which is the service provider company is not interested. The plaintiff by way of ad- interim relief though, is seeking direction against defendant no.1 and 2 for

2 / 3

Chitra Sonawane 24-AOST-2748-2021.doc

consideration of his application dated 1.12.2020, the application dated 19.12.2020 submitted by defendant no.3 or liberty to appyl online, however, as per the circular daetd 16.10.2014 and Notification dated 4.3.2014, the plaintiff who claims to be the owner of the structure, where the mobile tower is to be erected, has no right to seek permission/regularisation of the alleged erection of mobile tower. The learned advocate for the plaintiff prima facie failed to show the right of the plaintiff to seek such permission/regularisation, when he is not the service provider, who is erecting the mobile tower. In respect of the proposal dated19.12.2020, which is submitted by defendant no.3, the plaintiff has no right to claim any such relief on the basis of the said application/proposal, as the same has not been submitted by the plaintiff and when defendant no.3, is not coming forward for pressing the same.

3. In view of the observations made by the learned trial Court, no case is made out for seeking any ad-interim relief, at this stage. The application is rejected.

(PRITHVIRAJ K.CHAVAN J.)

3 / 3