Back
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, SATYEN VAIDYA
Kavi Khanna – Appellant
Versus
Municipal Corporation, Shimla – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Both these petitions have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment on account of inter-connection of facts involved.
2. For clarity, petitioner in CWP 3672 of 2022 will hereafter be referred as “the petitioner”, respondent No.1 as “the Corporation”, Commissioner of respondent No. 1 as “the Commissioner” and the respondent No 2 who also is the petitioner in CWP 5507 of 2022 will be referred to as “the respondent”
3. Facts necessary for adjudication of these petitions are that a complaint was received by the Architect Planner of the Corporation on 14.11.2019, through the “Chief Minister Sankalp Seva”, alleging acts of unauthorized construction against the petitioner. The Commissioner on 5.12.2019 issued a notice under Sections 254(6) & 253 read with Section 242 of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 (for short, ‘the Act’) to the petitioner requiring him to show cause as to why the civic amenities provided to petitioner be not withdrawn and why the unauthorized construction raised by him be not demolished. Petitioner was required to submit his response within three days and also to present himself before the Commissioner on 7.12.2019 at 1
Decision of Tribunal to determine is not liable to be questioned in proceedings under Article 226 of Constitution unless at least it is shown to be fully unsupported by evidence.
The court emphasized that it cannot go into disputed questions of fact while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and highlighted the finality of orders and the bar on j....
A decision by an authority impugned in a writ petition cannot be sustained if it fails to follow the directions in an earlier writ petition passed by a competent court.
The court upheld the validity of the sanctioned building plan and ruled that the writ petitioner had sufficient standing to maintain the petition despite failing to prove unauthorized construction.
The Special Officer lacked jurisdiction to regularize unauthorized construction under the KMC Act, rendering the action null and emphasizing the fundamental nature of jurisdiction in legal proceeding....
Writ of Certiorari is intended to correct jurisdictional excesses.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Corporation Officers must comply with the principles enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India, treat everyone equally, and not....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
