Back
2004 Supreme(Bom) 363
Bombay High Court
D.D.SINHA,K.J.ROHEE
Sanjay G.Khemuka - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Decided On : 03/10/2004
K. H. Deshpande, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Z. A. Haq, S. S. Adkar and R. J. Mirza, Sunil Manohar, B. G. Kulkarni, J. A. Vera, A. C. Dharmadhikari, R. V. Shiralkar, R. H. Udeshi, S. V. Akolkar, D. Narayanan, for Petitioner; A. M. Deshpande, Asstt. Govt. Pleader, C. S. Kaptan, M. V. Samarth, S. K. Mishra, for Respondents.
The doctrine of res judicata prevents parties to a judicial determination from litigating the same question over again even though the determination may even be demonstrably wrong. When the proceedings have attained finality, parties are bound by the judgment and are estopped from questioning it. They cannot litigate again on the same cause of action, nor can they litigate any issue which was necessary for decision in the earlier litigation.
Headnote:
The Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) issued notices to medical practitioners under Section 53(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act), alleging that the use of premises in residential, residential-cum-commercial, and commercial buildings for running clinics, pathology laboratories, diagnostic centers, hospitals, nursing homes, and maternity homes amounted to a change of user and was in contravention of the MRTP Act. The petitioners, including the Indian Medical Association (IMA), challenged these notices, arguing that the NMC was estopped from taking such action due to its previous stand before the High Court in related writ petitions and contempt proceedings. The High Court allowed the petitions and quashed the impugned notices.
Fact of the Case:
The NMC had previously taken a consistent stand before the High Court in related writ petitions and contempt proceedings that the establishments of the petitioners were established and were being run without any violation of law and Development Control Rules. The NMC had also specifically stated that the activities were not unauthorized or invalid. Based on this stand, the High Court had dismissed the writ petitions and discharged the contempt proceedings against the NMC.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the NMC was estopped from taking a different stand in the subsequent proceedings initiated by issuing the impugned notices. The Court found that the NMC was prohibited from taking a different stand than the one taken in the earlier proceedings on the ground of res judicata as well as principles of estoppel. The Court also held that the Order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court on a Civil Application filed by one of the petitioners, which directed the NMC to complete a survey of residential buildings being used for dispensaries, nursing homes, clinics, and hospitals without obtaining permission for change of permitted user, was of no consequence and could not be relied on by the NMC to issue the impugned notices.
Issues: 1. Whether the NMC was estopped from taking action against the petitioners under Section 53(1) of the MRTP Act in view of its previous stand before the High Court in related writ petitions and contempt proceedings? 2. Whether the Order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court on a Civil Application filed by one of the petitioners, which directed the NMC to complete a survey of residential buildings being used for dispensaries, nursing homes, clinics, and hospitals without obtaining permission for change of permitted user, could be relied on by the NMC to issue the impugned notices?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The doctrine of res judicata prevents parties to a judicial determination from litigating the same question over again even though the determination may even be demonstrably wrong. When the proceedings have attained finality, parties are bound by the judgment and are estopped from questioning it. They cannot litigate again on the same cause of action, nor can they litigate any issue which was necessary for decision in the earlier litigation. 2. The principles of estoppel and res judicata are based on public policy and justice. The rationale behind these doctrines is that if the controversy in issue is finally determined or decided by the competent Court and if such decision attains finality, then it will be illogical to allow the parties to such proceedings to re-open the same issue again and again which, in our considered view, would not only destroy the binding nature of judicial pronouncement, but also render such decisions nugatory.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the petitions and quashed the impugned notices issued by the NMC under Section 53(1) of the MRTP Act. The Court held that the NMC was estopped from taking such action due to its previous stand before the High Court in related writ petitions and contempt proceedings.
D. D. SINHA, J. :- Rulemadereturnable forthwith by consent of the parties. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Dr. Sanjay G. Khemuka, Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4278 of 2003, has filed the present writ petition challenging the Notice, dated 3rd October, 2003, issued by Respondent No. 3-Sub-Divisional Officer, requiring the Petitioner to stop the alleged unauthorized user of Apartment No. 005-A of Vinayak Apartments, Dhantoli, Nagpur, by discontinuing the X-ray Clinic.
3. Mr. Deshpande, the learned Senior Counsel, states that Dr. Sanjay has purchased the above mentioned apartment in the year 1989. The Development Engineer of Respondent No. 2-Corporation, by a communication, dated 12th December, 1989, granted consent certificate to the Petitioner to start X-ray Clinic in the above mentioned apartment. The petitioner, pursuant to the above consent certificate started the X-ray Clinic in the apartment in the year 1989 and since then till this date, Dr. Sanjay is running the said X-ray Clinic. Mr. Deshpande, the learned Senior Counsel, states that writ petition No. 1119 of 1996 as well as Writ Petition No. 1909 of 1997 were filed before this Court by Mr. Vinayak Wasudeo Updeo and Smt. Prabha Shrikrishna Ghule, both residents of Vinayak Apartments, Nagpur, against the City of Nagpur Corporation, Dr. Vinod Gandhi and two others as well as the present petitioner Dr. Sanjay and Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the present writ petition No. 4278 of 2003, and others, respectively. The prayers made by the petitioners in the said writ petitions were as follows :-
"(1) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction, directing the respondent No. 1 to take effective measures promptly so as to stop all commercial activities being carried out by the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in Vinayak Apartment, Lokmat Square, Nagpur and do all things necessary for securing the health, hygiene, peace, tranquillity of the petitioners, and the residential owners of the Vinayak Apartment.
(2) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction interim directing the Corporation to take immediate measures to stop the commercial activities of the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in Vinayak Apartments, during the pendency of the petition;
(3) Grant any other relief deemed fit."
Mr. Deshpande, the learned senior counsel, contended that writ petition Nos. 1119 of 1996 and 1909 of 1997 were vehemently opposed by Respondent No. 2 Nagpur Municipal Corporation, on the ground that the registrations granted by Respondent No. 2-Corporation to the Clinics, Nursing Homes, Pathology Laboratories, Hospitals etc. were proper and there was no breach of any provision of law. It is contended that since the petitioners in both the said writ petitions were same and the prayers were also identical, this Court had heard both the said Writ Petitions together and disposed of the same by a common judgment, dated 25th February, 2002. This Court, after taking into consideration the contentions canvassed by the respective parties to the said writ petitions, concluded that there was no breach of any Rule or provision of law. It is contended by the learned senior counsel Mr. Deshpande that though this Court has held that there was no breach of Rule or provision of law committed by the present petitioner Dr. Sanjay, however, since both the above referred writ petitions were considered in the wider perspective, the Division Bench had issued following directions in the judgment, dated 25th February, 2002, which are as follows :-
"(1) Examine the commencement of Nursing Homes, Clinics, Dispensaries, Hospitals, Laboratories etc., in the Dhantoli and Ramdaspeth area of Nagpur City and ensure that none of them is misusing permissions granted to them;
(2) That, all these establishments have a valid permission from the requisite authorities;
(3) That they maintain high standards of hygiene and scrupulously keep clean the locality in which they are situate. They be directed to take care that the dirty disposals and useless mate
