Bombay High Court
Roshanlal Gurmukhdas Rekhi And Ors vs The Panvel Municipal Corporation And ... on 4 October, 2024
Author: M S Sonak
Bench: M. S. Sonak
Roshanlal Gurmukhdas Rekhi and ors. V The Panvel
2024:BHC-AS:39194-DB
Municipal Corporation and anr.
505.wp.13755-2024(F).doc
Pradnya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 13755 OF 2024
1. ROSHANLAL GURMUKHDAS REKHI,
Age-95 years, off Panvel, Indian
Inhabitant, residing at-R.C.S. No.
1550/1, 1550/A, Chandoniketan,
Shivaji Road, Panvel-410206.
2. BRIJMOHAN R. REKHI,
Age-73 years, off Panvel, Indian
Inhabitant, residing at-R.C.S. No.
1550/1, 1550/A, Chandoniketan,
Shivaji Road, Panvel-410206.
3. MR SACHIN BRIJMOHAN REKHI,
Age-45 years, off Panvel, Indian
Inhabitant, residing at-R.C.S. No.
1550/1, 1550/A, Chandoniketan,
Shivaji Road, Panvel-410206. ...PETITIONERS
~ versus ~
1. THE PANVEL MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
Taluka-Panvel, District-Raigad,
Maharashtra-410206.
2. DESIGNATED OFFICER, WARD
COMMITTEE D,
Panvel Municipal corporation,
having its office at Panvel,
District-Raigad
Maharashtra-410206. ...RESPONDENTS
Page 1 of 5
Roshanlal Gurmukhdas Rekhi and ors. V The Panvel
Municipal Corporation and anr.
505.wp.13755-2024(F).doc
A PPEARANCES
FOR THE PETITIONERS Adv Vishal Kanade, with Adv
Ashwin Bhadang, Adv Neha
Patil, i/b Adv. Saakshi Jha.
FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND Mr Rohit Sakhadeo.
2-PMC
CORAM : M. S. Sonak &
Kamal Khata, JJ.
DATED : 4 October 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per M S Sonak J):-
1. Not on board. Upon mentioning taken on board.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the
request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the
parties.
4. The challenge in this Petition is to the notice dated 6
September 2024 made by Panvel Municipal Corporation
("PMC") requiring the Petitioners to demolish the illegal
construction allegedly undertaken by the Petitioners.
5. Mr Kanade, learned counsel for the Petitioners, submits
that any show cause notice did not precede the impugned
order. He submits that even the impugned notice is vague in
Roshanlal Gurmukhdas Rekhi and ors. V The Panvel
Municipal Corporation and anr.
505.wp.13755-2024(F).doc
as much as it does not refer to which portion of the
construction is alleged to be illegal and unauthorised.
Accordingly, Mr Kanade submits that the impugned notice
dated 6 September 2024 should be set aside for failure of
natural justice and vagueness.
6. Mr Sakhadeo, learned counsel for PMC, states that on
30 August 2024, a notice was given to the Petitioners, and
they were requested to remain present at the site. However,
the Petitioners chose not to remain present at the site and,
therefore, cannot now complain of the failure of natural
justice.
7. We have perused the notice dated 30 August 2024. This
notice primarily proceeds on the basis that the Petitioners'
structure is dilapidated. This notice also refers to a structural
audit report in support of such an eviction. There is a
reference to inspection of unauthorised construction, i.e.,
construction over and above the construction approved by the
initially sanctioned plan. But this notice does not clearly state
that it is a show cause notice in the context of the
unauthorised extension allegedly carried out by the
Petitioners.
8. In our judgment, the interest of justice would be met if
the impugned notice dated 6 September 2024 is directed to be
treated as a show cause notice to the Petitioners. Mr Sakhadeo
states that under the notice dated 30 August 2024, the PMC
officials inspected the construction on 4 September 2024. He
Roshanlal Gurmukhdas Rekhi and ors. V The Panvel
Municipal Corporation and anr.
505.wp.13755-2024(F).doc
says the inspection memo would be provided to the
Petitioners by 12 October 2024. If the PMC has any other
material to show that the extension carried out by the
Petitioners is illegal and unauthorised, even the same will be
supplied to the Petitioners by 12 October 2024.
9. The notice dated 6 September 2024 and the above
material supplied to the Petitioners by 12 October 2024 would
give them a fair idea of the allegation now being made against
them. Besides, the Petitioners are expected to have the
sanctioned plans. The Petitioners are also expected to produce
material to show that the structure at the site completely
aligns with the sanctioned plan and that there is no illegal
extension, as alleged by the PMC. All of this will substantially
meet with compliance with the principles of natural justice.
10. The Petitioners should file a reply by 22 October 2024 at
the latest. After receiving the reply, the PMC should grant the
Petitioners a hearing on 24 October 2024 at 11:00 a.m. After
considering the Petitioners' response and hearing them, the
PMC should make and communicate its decision to the
Petitioners on or before 14 November 2024.
11. If the PMC makes an adverse order, the PMC should not
act on this order for two weeks from the date of its
communication.
Roshanlal Gurmukhdas Rekhi and ors. V The Panvel
Municipal Corporation and anr.
505.wp.13755-2024(F).doc
12. All parties' contentions are left open because this Court
has not entered into the merits of the controversy between the
parties.
13. The Rule is disposed of in the above terms without any
cost order.
14. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this
order.
(Kamal Khata, J) (M. S. Sonak, J)
Signed by: Pradnya Bhogale
Date: 04/10/2024 18:07:35
