SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(MP) 631

S.A.DHARMADHIKARI
Balram – Appellant
Versus
Ravishankar – Respondent


Advocates:
P.C. Chandil for petitioner; Abhishek Bindal for respondent No.1.

ORDER

1. Heard.

2. In this review petition, the petitioner has sought review of the order dated 19.12.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.8759/2016 whereby the writ petition was disposed of at admission stage itself without issuing notice to the other side i.e. present review petitioner with direction that the respondent No.2/petitioner shall prefer the application for compounding within two days. In case, such application is preferred before the competent authority i.e. Municipal Corporation, the same shall be decided by speaking and reasoned order within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.

3. The grievance of the review petitioner is that the respondent No.1 has raised illegal construction to the extent that the road has been narrowed down and petitioner and other persons are facing difficulty in regular movement. Since the respondent No.2 did not remove the illegal construction, the petitioner filed an application under section 307(5) of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act. The said application was decided on 28.10.2015, whereby, respondent No.2 was ordered to remove the illegal construction raised by the respondent No.1. The said







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top