Back
2017 Supreme(SC) 226
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, A.M. Khanwilkar, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ.
Rufina D' souza & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3798 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (c) No. 1999 of 2017)
Decided On : 9-03-2017
For the Appellants : Pratap Venugopal, Ms. Surekha Raman, Ms. Niharika, Dv., Ms. Kanika Kalaiyarasan, (for M/s. K. J. John & Co.), Advs.
For the Respondents:- Atul Yeshwant Chitale, Sr. Adv., Mrs. Suchitra Atul Chitale, Tanvi Kakar, Chirag M. Shroff, Advs.
IMPORTANT POINT
Existence of dispute regarding specific performance between appellant and private respondent cannot be a ground to dismiss the writ petition.
Headnote:Administration of justice – Judicial review – Writ petition challenging action of Municipal corporation and notice for disconnection of electricity – High Court summarily dismissing writ petition on ground of dispute regarding specific performance between appellant and private respondent – Not proper – High Court ought to have examined the grounds of challenge and the reliefs claimed by the appellants. (Para 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
It The appellants filed writ petition challenging the action initiated by the Corporation under Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888; and the notice for disconnecting the electricity and water connection in respect of the building in which the appellants were occupying tenements therein.
The Division Bench of the High Court summarily dismissed the petition.
Fining of the Court:
Writ petition ought not be dismissed summarily.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
This appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 13th January 2017 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition (L) No. 2644 of 2016. By the said order, the High Court summarily dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellants.
2. There is a chequered history of proceedings between the appellants and the private respondents. For the nature of order that we propose to pass, it may not be necessary to advert to all those facts and proceedings.
3. The aforementioned writ petition was filed for the following reliefs:
"a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari of a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India quashing the Impugned Notices dated 18th November 2014 bearing No.ACN/1014/2/B&F/Gen issued by the 2nd Respondent declaring J.D. House under C-1 Category;
b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India quashing the Impugned Notice dated 9th August, 2016 bearing No.ACN/347/Gen/B&F issued by the 2nd Respondent for disconnecting the electricity and water connection of J.D. House situated at C.T.S. No.244 to 247 of Village Ghatkopar-Kirol, Near Jamma Mazid, Chirag Nagar Road, Off L.B.S. Road, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai 400086;
c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain the Respondents, either by themselves or through their agents or servants, by a permanent order of injunction from taking any steps pursuant to or in execution of the Impugned Notice dated 9th August 2016 bearing ACN/347/Gen/B&F issued by the 2nd Respondent in respect of J.D. House situated at C.T.S. No.244 to 247 of Village Ghatkopar-Kirol, Near Jamma Mazid, Chirag Nagar Road, Off L.B.S. Road, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai 400086;
d) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Writ Petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the 2nd Respondent to restore the water connection and electricity for all the premises of J.D. House situated at C.T.S. No.244 to 247 of Village Ghatkopar - Kirol, Near Jamma Mazid, Chirag Nagar Road, Off L.B.S. Road, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai 400086;
e) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Suit, this Hon'ble Court by pleased to stay the effect and operation of the Impugned Notice dated 9th August, 2016 bearing No.ACN/347/Gen/B&F issued by the 2nd Respondent;
f) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Suit, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to refrain the Respondents, either by themselves or through their agents or servants, by a temporary order of injunction from taking any further steps pursuant to or in execution of the Impugned Notice dated 9th August, 2016 bearing No. CAN/347/Gen/B&F issued by the 2nd Respondent;
g) For ad-interim and interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause (d) (e) and (f) above;
h) For costs;
i) For such further and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the present case may require."
4. On a plain reading of these reliefs, it is evident that the appellants were essentially challenging the action initiated by the Corporation under Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888; and the notice for disconnecting the electricity and water connection in respect of the building in which the appellants were occupying tenements therein. The Division Bench of the High Court, however, summarily dismissed the petition in the following terms:
"It is informed that in connection with the subject property, Civil Suits for specific performance challenging the action of the Corporation for demolition of the building are being contested. During the course of hearing, we have noticed that parties are not at present agreeing for agreement to be entered into by them. Certain issues are raised which required some inquiry to be conducted. The disputed questions cannot be gone into in the
