S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, G.S.PATEL
Vivek Shantaram Kokate – Appellant
Versus
Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
G.S. Patel, J.
1. “According to the structural consultants’ report obtained by the Petitioners, their building can be repaired. Therefore, the notices saying it is ruinous, dangerous and dilapidated and requiring it to be pulled down, and the report of the Technical Advisory Committee to that effect, should all be quashed.” This is the entirety of Mr. Murthy’s submission on behalf of the Petitioners. The submission is contrary to settled law, as set out below, and is unsupported on undisputed facts.
2. The Petitioners occupy various rooms or tenements of about 285 sq ft in a building known as Martand Prasad at Pannalal Ghosh Marg, Somwari Bazar, Malad (West), Mumbai 400 064. The building has two wings, Wing A and Wing B. The Petitioners’ rooms are all in Wing A (though paragraph 1 of the Petitioner claims, wrongly, that some of the Petitioners are in Wing B). It is undisputed that Wing B and Wing A are interconnected, at least structurally, and that Wing B has been evacuated as being dangerous, and has been either wholly or partly demolished.
3. This Petition, brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, follows the usual trajectory we have noticed in a raft of se
Diwanchand Gupta v NM Shah & Ors.
EP Royappa v State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3; Indian Railway Construction Co Ltd v Ajay Kumar
Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors v P Chandra Mouli & Anr
Gulam Mustafa v State of Maharashtra
Kishore Kumar Khaitan & Anr v Praveen Kumar Singh
Nathubhai Dhulaji v Municipal Corporation
Shaha Ratansi Khimji & Sons v Kumbhar Sons Hotel Pvt Ltd & Ors.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.