JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged notices dtd. 10/10/2018 and 22/11/2018,
issued by respondent No.2 concerning a structure
occupied by the petitioners. The petitioners have also
challenged orders passed by two Courts below holding
that appeal challenging the aforesaid notices was not
maintainable under the provisions of the Maharashtra
Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (for short "Act of
1949 ").
(2.)Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that perusal of the notice
dtd. 22/11/2018, issued by respondent No.2 would
show that it was clearly a notice under sec. 300 of
the Act of 1949 for the reason that under the aforesaid
provision, it would be the Commissioner or an
Authorized Officer delegated by the said Commissioner,
who could issue such a notice for demolition of the
structure in question. It was contended that under
sec. 264 of the Act of 1949, a designated officer
could only ask the owner or the occupier of such a
structure, which was found to be in a ruinous condition
or dangerous to any person occupying the same, to
remove or repair such a structure. On this basis, it was
submitted that the appeal filed under sec. 306 of the
Act of 1949, was clearly maintainable and that
therefore, the two Courts below erred in dismissing the
appeal as not maintainable.
(3.)On the other hand, Mr. Quazi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, submitted that perusal
of the notices dtd. 10/10/2018 and 22/11/2018
would show that such notices could not be said to be
issued under sec. 300 of the Act of 1949, as the
designated officer had asked the petitioners to remove
the structure and thereafter indicated to them to vacate
the structure within three days for removal of the same
by exercising powers under sec. 264 of the Act of
1949. It was submitted that although the specific provision of sec. 264 of the Act of 1949 may not
have been mentioned, but the contents of the notices
demonstrated that such notices were clearly issued
under the said provision. On this basis, it was
submitted that the impugned orders did not deserve
any interference.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.