N.r.bubna

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION STAMP NO. 14251 OF 2017 Smt. Majedabano Mohd. Mukeem Ansari ....Petitioner V/S Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation, Through Its Commissioner And Ors. ....Respondent CORAM : A.S. OKA & SMT. VIBHA VASANT KANKANWADI, JJ DATE : 14th June, 2017 P.C. : On account of paucity of time, matter stands adjourned to 12/12/2017. If any ad-interim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will be continue to operate till the next date. If ad-interim or interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said order will remain unaffected. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: pmw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6665 OF 2017 Smt. Majedabano Mohd. Mukeem Ansari … Petitioner Vs. Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Atharva A. Dandekar for the Petitioner. CORAM : A.S. OKA & SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, JJ. DATE : 20th JUNE, 2017 P.C. . Not on Board. Taken on Board. 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. He states that notice of today's application has been served to the first respondent. He states that he will file an affidavit of service. We accept the statement. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 19th July, 2017. We direct the first respondent to depute the Designated Officer of the concerned ward to the site for ascertaining whether illegal construction as alleged by the petitioner is in progress. The Designated Officer shall visit the site within a period of three working days from the date on which an authenticated copy of this order is served to the first respondent. 2 If the Designated Officer finds that illegal construction is in progress, he shall forthwith take steps in accordance with law for stopping the illegal construction and thereafter proceed to take steps for demolition of the illegal construction in accordance with law. 3 Compliance affidavit shall be filed by the Designated Officer before the next date. The first respondent to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. 4 In addition to service through Court, private service is permitted. Along with private notice authenticated copy of this order shall be forwarded to the concerned respondents. (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J) (A.S. OKA, J)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6665 OF 2017 Smt. Majedabano Mohd. Mukeem Ansari ....Petitioner V/S Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation, Through Its Commissioner And Ors. ....Respondent CORAM : A.S. OKA & SMT. VIBHA VASANT KANKANWADI, JJ DATE : 19th July, 2017 P.C. : On account of paucity of time, matter stands adjourned to 29/09/2017. If any ad-interim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will be continue to operate till the next date. If ad-interim or interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said order will remain unaffected. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6665 OF 2017 Smt. Majedabano Mohd. Mukeem Ansari ....Petitioner V/S Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation, Through Its Commissioner And Ors. ....Respondent CORAM : A.S. OKA & P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ DATE : 11th January, 2018 P.C. : On account of paucity of time, matter stands adjourned to 02/04/2018. If any ad-interim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will be continue to operate till the next date. If ad-interim or interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said order will remain unaffected. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6665 OF 2017 Smt. Majedabano Mohd. Mukeem Ansari ....Petitioner V/S Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation, Through Its Commissioner And Ors. ....Respondent Mr Atharva A.dandekar For Petitioner Mr N. R Bubna for R.no.1 CORAM : A.S. OKA & P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ DATE : 12th January, 2018 P.C. : Not on Board. Taken on Board. No Order. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6665 OF 2017 Smt Majedabano Mohd. Mukeem Ansari ..Petitioner vs. Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation, through its Commissioner and Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Atharva A. Dandekar for the Petitioner. CORAM : A.S. OKA & P. N. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : 22nd JANUARY, 2018 P.C.: . Not on board. Taken on board. Mr. Dandekar, the learned counsel appearing for Petitioner states that he has served a notice to the advocates representing the Respondent No.1 as well as the Respondent No.4 of today's application. We accept the statement. Affidavit of service be filed within one week from today. He states that the Designated Officer of the Respondent No.1 has not complied with the directions contained in the order dated 28th June 2017. Place the Petition under caption "Direction" on 9th February 2018. We direct the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation to ensure that the Designated Officer of the concerned ward personally remains present on the next date along with the file. Advocate for the Petitioner to serve a copy of this order in the office of the Commissioner of the Respondent No.1 and the Commissioner shall act upon the said order. (P.N. DESHMUKH, J) (A.S. OKA, J.)

Order - Status 19: pmw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6665 OF 2017 Smt. Majedabano Moh. Mukeem Ansari … Petitioner Vs. Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation & Ors. … Respondents Mr. Atharva Dandekar for the Petitioner. Mr. N.R. Bubna for the Respondent No.1. Mr. Atul G. Damle, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. R.D. Suryawanshi for Respondent Nos.2 to 4. CORAM : A.S. OKA & P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : 9 th FEBRUARY, 2018 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second to fourth respondents. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has produced for perusal of the Court a file containing relevant documents. The file shows that on 15th October, 2015 when the officers of the Municipal Corporation inspected the structure subject matter of this Petition (pages 79 to 83), construction of ground floor was in progress. It appears that further inspection was carried out on 16th October, 2015, when certain construction material was seized. It appears that on 4th November, 2015 a notice was issued to second and third respondents calling upon them to stop the construction. On 7th November, 2015 when the Municipal Officers visited the property, it was found that slab of the ground floor was laid which was not in existence on 15th October, 2015. On 8th March, 2016, when the Municipal Officers visited the property it was found that brick work of the ground floor and the construction of erection of columns of the first floor was in progress. Photographs taken on that date are also part of the file. It appears that prosecution was lodged against second and third respondents under Section 52 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short "the MRTP Act, 1966"). There are further reports of inspection carried out by the Municipal officers and photographs taken during the course of inspection. It appears that construction continued on the site. The report dated 11th August, 2016 submitted by the Municipal officers of the inspection along with photographs show that RCC work of ground plus two floors was completed and work of third floor was in progress. 2 On 31st May, 2017 again inspection was taken when it was found that substantial work of ground plus three floors was completed. Some shops on the ground floor were occupied and the construction of fourth floor was in progress. There are subsequent notices issued by the Bhiwandi Nizampur Municipal Corporation and in fact of 2nd June, 2017 hearing was fixed. It appears that FIR was registered vide C.R. 81/2017. On 7th June, 2017 an order was made by the Assistant Commissioner which is addressed to second and third respondents which holds that construction of ground plus four floors made by them is completely illegal. In terms of adinterim order passed by this Court on 12th July, 2017 the Municipal Officers visited the building. At that time, it was found that construction of ground plus five floors was completed. The work of plastering upto three floors was completed. Partial brick work of fourth floor was completed and brick work of fifth floor was in progress. It is pointed out that out of 13 galas on the ground floor, some have been occupied and some are kept closed. It is pointed out that some of the flats have been also occupied. The photographs taken on 24th October, 2017 have been annexed which show that substantial number of shops on the ground floor have been occupied and parts of the upper floors has been occupied. 3 It is true that the petitioner has filed a suit for injunction against second to fourth respondents in which a limited injunction has been granted which prevents the second to fourth respondents from carrying out construction. The documents in the file prima facie show that there is no development permission granted to second to fourth respondents. The second to fourth respondents have proceeded with construction as stated above after 27th July, 2015. Apart from the fact that construction is grossly illegal it was completely in breach of the order dated 27th July, 2015 passed by the Civil Court. 4 The issue in this Petition is about inaction of the Bhiwandi Nizampur Municipal Corporation to take action of demolition against the illegal structure. Notwithstanding the pendency of the suit filed by the petitioner, this Petition will have to be interfered as the documents produced by the Municipal Corporation prima facie show that notwithstanding several notices issued by the Municipal Corporation and notwithstanding grant of interim relief by the trial Court, the construction high handedly proceeded. The construction of ground plus five floors is completely illegal. Some of the premises have been permitted to be occupied. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second to fourth respondents states that Shri Ethesham Ahmed Azmi is present in the Court on behalf of the second to fourth respondents. 5 At this stage, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second to fourth respondents pointed out that in this Petition the grievance made is about illegal construction in respect of CTS No.334, Survey No.32, Hissa No.3 (part). The documents in the file to which we have made a reference indicate that the same are in respect of the land bearing Survey No.72/3, CTS No.342, Vetalpada, Bhiwandi. Thus, the structure subject matter of the documents in the file is on land bearing CTS No.342, Survey No.72/3 in respect of which no relief is claimed in the Petition. 6 We may note that in R.C.S. No.428 of 2015, the prayer sought is in respect of the land bearing CTS No.334, Survey No.32, Hissa No.3 (part) at village Nagaon, Khandupada. Therefore, second to fourth respondents were right in submitting that the file which is produced by the learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation does not relate to City Survey No.334, Survey No.32, Hissa No.3 or Survey No.82, Hissa No.3. 7 In the circumstances and in view of the fact that the suit filed by the petitioner is already pending in the Civil Court, we decline to entertain this Petition. However, we clarify that notwithstanding the disposal of the Petition, the Municipal Corporation is bound to take action in accordance with law for demolition of the illegal structure constructed on Survey No.72/3 of village Nagaon, (City Survey No.342) at Bhiwandi, District Thane. Subject to what is observed above, the Petition is disposed of. (P.N. DESHMUKH, J) (A.S. OKA, J)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4688 OF 2005 Jaiprakash Kailashnath Upadhyay .. Petitioner. V/s. Adishakti Hindi Prachar Samiti through the Secretary & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.N.R.Bubna for the petitioner. Mr.C.K.Thomas for for respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr.R.S.Apte for respondent No.3. CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 13th November, 2006. P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to furnish a copy of the appointment order on record. S.O. to one week. (A.P.DESHPANDE,J)

Order - Status 13: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE. WRIT PETITION NO. 4688 OF 2005. Office Notes,Office : Memoranda of Coram, : Court's or Judge's orders appearances,Court 's : orders or directions : and Registrar's orders. : N.P.Bubna for the petitioner. C.K.Thomas for respondent Nos.1 & 2. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 19th Septemeber 2006. P.C.: . Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to file service report on record. He is directed to file it in office. Office to verify. (V.C.DAGA, J.)

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.4688 OF 2005 Jaiprakash K. Upadhyay .... Petitioner Vs. Adishakti Hindi Prachar Samiti & Ors. .... Respondents Shri N.R. Bubna for the Petitioner. Shri C.K. Thomas for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Sarvasri M.S. Lagu i/b R.S. Apte for the Respondent No.3. CORAM: R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J. DATED: NOVEMBER 30, 2006 P.C: Heard. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the School Tribunal dated 7-5-2005 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground that the same was filed beyond the period of limitation, without disclosing sufficient cause for the same. The Tribunal has arrived at the clear finding that the services of the petitioner were terminated from 30-4-2002 and has disbelieved the claim of the petitioner that he was rendering services in the school till 16-8-2003 and therefore the appeal filed in the year 2003 has been held to be barred by the law of limitation. In spite of repeated queries, the learned Advocate for the petitioner has not been able to point out cogent material on record which could reveal the said finding of the School Tribunal to be either perverse or contrary to the materials on record. Considering the limited scope for interference in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in such orders, and where the order rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay in filing the appeal discloses the finding arrived at on the basis of analysis of the materials on record and which cannot be said to be either perverse or contrary to the materials on record, there is no case made out for interference in the impugned order. The discretion exercised by the School Tribunal while rejecting the request for condonation of delay in filing the appeal also cannot be said to be either perverse or having been exercised in arbitrary manner. Mere reference to the letter of 16-11-2002 by the Education Officer or the affidavit of one of the assistant teachers of the school claiming the petitioner having been in employment till 16-8-2003 cannot prove that the petitioner had rendered services till 16-8-2003, particularly in view of the undisputed fact that the petitioner was not allowed to sign the muster roll after 30-4-2002. The affidavit of the teacher, apart from making a bald claim about continuing service rendered by the petitioner in the said school during the period from 13-6-2001 till 16-8-2003, nowhere discloses as to what subjects the petitioner was teaching in the school and what was the time-table allotted to him. So also, the letter of 16-11-2002 of the Education Officer merely brings to the notice of the management about some complaint made by the petitioner on 8-11-2002 about refusal on the part of the management to allow the complainant to sign the muster roll as well as failure on the part of the management to pay the salary to the teachers. It does not specifically refers to the grievance of the petitioner himself as such. In the circumstances, no fault can be found with the finding arrived at by the School Tribunal and it does not warrant any interference in writ jurisdiction. The petition, therefore, fails and is rejected. (R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.) sjs/1130wp4688.5