Trilok Singh Pahlajsingh Rajpal vs Municipal Corporation For ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 11535 Bom

                                                                           910-OSWPL-25499-2023.DOC




                                                                                                     Sumedh



                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                                      WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 25499 OF 2023


                       Trilok Singh Pahlajsingh Rajpal                                     ...Petitioner
                             Versus
                       Municipal Corporation For Greater Mumbai &
                       Ors                                                             ...Respondents


                       Mr Rubin Vakil, with Sahil Gandhi, Dimple Vora & Sharvari Joshi
                            i/b Markand Gandhi & Co, for the Petitioner.
                       Mr Himanshu Takke, AGP, for the Respondent - State.
                       Ms Rupali Adhate, for the Respondent - MCGM.
                       Mr Yogesh Parte, Sub-Engineer (D.P.) - Present.


                                                     CORAM     G.S. Patel &
                                                               Kamal Khata, JJ.

                                                     DATED:    8th November 2023
                       PC:-

1. On 30th October 2023, we passed a detailed order. We issued rule, made it returnable forthwith and then referred to a reasoned Division Bench order of 16th September 2022. We noted that the direction in that order was to notify the lapsing of the reservation by a publication in the Official Gazette under Section 127(2) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 ("MRTP"). We noted that the State Government had not challenged the Division Bench order of 16th September 2023. It had thus attained SUMEDH NAMDEO SONAWANE Digitally signed by SUMEDH NAMDEO

Date: 2023.11.09 11:15:10 +0530 8th November 2023

910-OSWPL-25499-2023.DOC

finality. We also noted that this Petition could well have been in the form of an Interim Application.

2. On 30th October 2023, Mr Takke on behalf of the State Government stated that his instructions were that the Government was considering the issue. We held that there was nothing to consider; the State Government was bound by a judgment of this Court. A year and two months had passed from the date of the 16th September 2022 order. The notification in question was to be issued within six months. We held that the State Government was already conceivably in contempt. We granted time until 6th November 2023 to issue the notification.

3. Today we are told that the Government is still in a need of several weeks to issue the notification.

4. We are also told that certain officers visited the Petitioner three days ago saying that they wanted to survey the land for the purpose of a reservation/acquisition. No such question can now arise in view of the lapsing.

5. There is a binding judgment of this Court. The issuance of an Official Gazette Notification is a ministerial act. It is a formality. The direction on 16th September 2022 was perhaps a courtesy to complete the process in all respects. The Government cannot be permitted to drag its feet like this and to seek adjournment after adjournment in complying with orders of this Court.

8th November 2023

910-OSWPL-25499-2023.DOC

6. We are therefore compelled to do what we had earlier refrained from doing and that is to immediately issue a contempt notice to the Principal Secretary of the Urban Development Department for failure to comply with a decision of this Court on 16th September 2022 and our order of 30th October 2023. Issue notice under Rule 9(1) of the Bombay High Court Rules of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 returnable in Court on 13th December 2023. The only manner in which this will be purged is by compliance.

7. In any event, to leave no manner of doubt, we hold that this Court has by its order of 16th September 2022 already held that the reservation has lapsed. There is no question therefore of any person or authority claiming or contending that the lapsing has not taken place and most certainly that the lapsing is not effective only for want of the issuance of a notification in the Official Gazette. The State Government cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own failure to abide by binding orders of this Court.

8. List the matter on 13th December 2023 for the contempt notice. Registry to separately number the contempt notice.

 (Kamal Khata, J)                                            (G. S. Patel, J)





                               8th November 2023