Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation VS Sanjay Gajanan Gharat...
Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation VS Sanjay Gajanan Gharat - 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 299
: Under Section 56 of the Municipal Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, the Municipal Commissioner has the discretionary power to suspend any municipal officer or servant, including those holding a post equivalent to or higher in rank than the Assistant Commissioner, pending an inquiry into allegations against them. However, such suspension must be reported to the Corporation with reasons, and if not confirmed by the Corporation within six months, the suspension automatically lapses. The Commissioner also has the authority to initiate departmental proceedings against such officers, provided that dismissal of an officer at or above the rank of Assistant Commissioner requires prior approval of the Corporation. The power to suspend is not considered a penalty and is exercised in the interest of maintaining discipline and ensuring a fair inquiry.Checking relevance for Government of NCT of Delhi VS Office of Lieutenant Governor of Delhi...Checking relevance for Muni Suvrat-Swami Jain S. M. P. Sangh VS Arun Nathuram Gaikwad...
2006 9 Supreme 95 : Under Section 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1988, the Municipal Commissioner has discretionary power to decide whether to demolish an unauthorized structure. The Commissioner must first issue a notice under Section 351 requiring the person to show cause why the structure should not be pulled down. If sufficient cause is not shown, the Commissioner ''''may'''' remove, alter, or pull down the building, but this is left to the Commissioner''''s discretion. The High Court cannot issue a mandatory order (mandamus) for demolition as it would impede the exercise of this statutory discretion. The power to order demolition is exclusively vested in the Municipal Commissioner and not in the courts.Checking relevance for Tara Chand Khatri VS Municipal Corporation Of Delhi...
Checking relevance for B. S. Khurana VS Municipal Corporation Of Delhi...
2000 6 Supreme 327 : Under Section 200 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, the power to dispose of property vests in the Municipal Commissioner, not in the Municipal Corporation. The Commissioner has the authority to dispose of movable property, grant leases of immovable property, or sell immovable property, but only after obtaining sanction from the Corporation. This sanction is mandatory, and the Commissioner cannot transfer immovable property valued above fifty thousand rupees without it. The scheme of Sections 3, 42, 43, 54, 59, and 200 establishes that executive power under the Act is vested in the Commissioner, who is appointed by the Central Government. The Corporation’s role is limited to providing sanction, and it does not have independent power to dispose of property. Therefore, the Commissioner’s discretion under Section 200 is subject to statutory conditions, particularly the requirement of obtaining Corporation sanction for disposal of immovable property exceeding ₹50,000 in value.Checking relevance for Municipal Corporation Of Delhi VS Jagdish Lal...
1969 0 Supreme(SC) 231 : Under Section 476(1)(h) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, the Commissioner has the discretionary power to institute, prosecute, or withdraw from any suit or other legal proceeding, or to compromise any claim for a sum not exceeding five hundred rupees, in the name of the Corporation or the Commissioner, with the approval of the Standing Committee. This provision grants the Municipal Commissioner discretionary authority for initiating legal proceedings, including complaints before a Magistrate, subject to approval by the Standing Committee when required.Checking relevance for Gopeshwar Iron & Steel Works Pvt. Ltd. VS Kolkata Municipal Corporation...
2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 123 : Under Section 400(1) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, the Municipal Commissioner does not have discretionary power to regularize unauthorized construction. This is because Section 635 of the Act repeals the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, which previously granted such discretion under Section 414. The court held that the principle from Purusottom Lalji (supra), which recognized discretionary power under Section 414 of the 1951 Act, is not applicable in the context of the 1980 Act. Therefore, the Municipal Commissioner lacks the authority to exercise discretion in favor of regularization of unauthorized construction under the current statutory framework.
