1 IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.622 OF 2008 PETITION NO.622 OF 2008 PETITION NO.622 OF 2008 Chaturbhuj Chaturbhuj Chaturbhuj Shivbhajan Shukla Shivbhajan Shukla Shivbhajan Shukla .. .. .. Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner vs vs vs The The The State of Maharashtra & ors.. Respondents State of Maharashtra & ors.. Respondents State of Maharashtra & ors.. Respondents Mr.A.M.Saraogi Mr.A.M.Saraogi Mr.A.M.Saraogi for Petitioner for Petitioner for Petitioner Mr.R.M.Patne Mr.R.M.Patne Mr.R.M.Patne AGP for Respondent no.1 AGP for Respondent no.1 AGP for Respondent no.1 Mr.A.J.Bhor Mr.A.J.Bhor Mr.A.J.Bhor for Respondent no.2 for Respondent no.2 for Respondent no.2 CORAM CORAM CORAM : S.C.Dharmadhikari, J : S.C.Dharmadhikari, J : S.C.Dharmadhikari, J DATED DATED DATED : 7th February, 2008 : 7th February, 2008 : 7th February, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. 1. 1. This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution Constitution Constitution of India is directed against the of India is directed against the of India is directed against the order order order passed by the Municipal Corporation of passed by the Municipal Corporation of passed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Greater Greater Bombay rejecting the application for Bombay rejecting the application for Bombay rejecting the application for regularisation regularisation regularisation of the structure which is in of the structure which is in of the structure which is in occupation occupation occupation of the petitioner. It is not in dispute of the petitioner. It is not in dispute of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that that that the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay resorted resorted resorted to section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal to section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal to section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Corporation Corporation Act, 1988 with regard to the works Act, 1988 with regard to the works Act, 1988 with regard to the works which which which have been carried out by the petitioner as an have been carried out by the petitioner as an have been carried out by the petitioner as an occupier occupier occupier in the premises situated on ground floor in the premises situated on ground floor in the premises situated on ground floor of of of 333, S.V.P.Road, Girgaum, Mumbai. This notice 333, S.V.P.Road, Girgaum, Mumbai. This notice 333, S.V.P.Road, Girgaum, Mumbai. This notice and and and order of the Collector in pursuance thereof order of the Collector in pursuance thereof order of the Collector in pursuance thereof dated dated dated 7th March, 2005 were all subject matter of 7th March, 2005 were all subject matter of 7th March, 2005 were all subject matter of civil civil civil proceedings before the City Civil Court. proceedings before the City Civil Court. proceedings before the City Civil Court. When When When the petitioner was not successful in the petitioner was not successful in the petitioner was not successful in restraining restraining restraining the Corporation from pursuing its the Corporation from pursuing its the Corporation from pursuing its action, action, action, he challenged the order in an Appeal from he challenged the order in an Appeal from he challenged the order in an Appeal from Order Order Order No.433 of 2005 in this Court. This Court No.433 of 2005 in this Court. This Court No.433 of 2005 in this Court. This Court recorded recorded recorded the statement of the learned counsel the statement of the learned counsel the statement of the learned counsel 2 appearing appearing appearing for the appellant that he was not for the appellant that he was not for the appellant that he was not pressing pressing pressing the suit before the trial Court but, would the suit before the trial Court but, would the suit before the trial Court but, would be be be happy if the Court grants him liberty to move an happy if the Court grants him liberty to move an happy if the Court grants him liberty to move an application application application for regularisation of the works that for regularisation of the works that for regularisation of the works that have have have been carried out as an occupier by him. In been carried out as an occupier by him. In been carried out as an occupier by him. In such such such circumstances, to enable the petitioner to circumstances, to enable the petitioner to circumstances, to enable the petitioner to apply apply apply for regularisation, this Court directed that for regularisation, this Court directed that for regularisation, this Court directed that notice notice notice under section 351 may not be acted upon for under section 351 may not be acted upon for under section 351 may not be acted upon for a brief period. The petitioner has been stalling brief period. The petitioner has been stalling brief period. The petitioner has been stalling the the the demolition or the removal of the unauthorised demolition or the removal of the unauthorised demolition or the removal of the unauthorised works works works on some pretext or the other. He applied for on some pretext or the other. He applied for on some pretext or the other. He applied for regularisation regularisation regularisation on 14th June, 2005 and because the on 14th June, 2005 and because the on 14th June, 2005 and because the said said said application was pending ad interim protection application was pending ad interim protection application was pending ad interim protection granted granted granted by this Court was extended on 9th November, by this Court was extended on 9th November, by this Court was extended on 9th November, 2005. 2005. 2005. This Court in an order passed on 9th This Court in an order passed on 9th This Court in an order passed on 9th November, November, November, 2005 has recorded that the petitioner 2005 has recorded that the petitioner 2005 has recorded that the petitioner moved moved moved a wrong authority. Thereafter, one more a wrong authority. Thereafter, one more a wrong authority. Thereafter, one more extension extension extension was granted on 15th February, 2006. was granted on 15th February, 2006. was granted on 15th February, 2006. Application Application Application for regularisation was considered and for regularisation was considered and for regularisation was considered and rejected rejected rejected by the Corporation on 6th March, 2006. by the Corporation on 6th March, 2006. by the Corporation on 6th March, 2006. 2. 2. 2. Thereafter, the petitioner moved the Minister Thereafter, the petitioner moved the Minister Thereafter, the petitioner moved the Minister for for for Urban Development, Government of Maharashtra by Urban Development, Government of Maharashtra by Urban Development, Government of Maharashtra by making making making a representation. He styled it that as a a representation. He styled it that as a a representation. He styled it that as a statutory statutory statutory appeal and came to this Court complaining appeal and came to this Court complaining appeal and came to this Court complaining that that that the same has not been considered. This Court the same has not been considered. This Court the same has not been considered. This Court rejected rejected rejected Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 933 of 2006 Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 933 of 2006 Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 933 of 2006 on on on 25th April, 2006. 25th April, 2006. 25th April, 2006. 3. 3. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner was informed on 11th Thereafter, the petitioner was informed on 11th Thereafter, the petitioner was informed on 11th July, July, July, 2006 by the Corporation that his 2006 by the Corporation that his 2006 by the Corporation that his representation representation representation dated 27th April, 2006 to the dated 27th April, 2006 to the dated 27th April, 2006 to the 3 Minister Minister Minister has been considered and the said has been considered and the said has been considered and the said representation representation representation so also the request for so also the request for so also the request for regularisation regularisation regularisation is rejected. That communication is is rejected. That communication is is rejected. That communication is also also also received by the petitioner but thereafter he received by the petitioner but thereafter he received by the petitioner but thereafter he challenged challenged challenged the same by a Writ Petition being Writ the same by a Writ Petition being Writ the same by a Writ Petition being Writ Petition Petition Petition No.3171 of 2006 which Petition was also No.3171 of 2006 which Petition was also No.3171 of 2006 which Petition was also dismissed dismissed dismissed as withdrawn by this Court. Liberty that as withdrawn by this Court. Liberty that as withdrawn by this Court. Liberty that is is is sought by the petitioner in that Writ Petition sought by the petitioner in that Writ Petition sought by the petitioner in that Writ Petition was was was that he will move a fresh application that he will move a fresh application that he will move a fresh application impleading impleading impleading the landlord. The landlord is impleaded the landlord. The landlord is impleaded the landlord. The landlord is impleaded as as as respondent no.3. However, respondent no. 3- respondent no.3. However, respondent no. 3- respondent no.3. However, respondent no. 3- landlord landlord landlord according to Mr.Saraogi is not inclined to according to Mr.Saraogi is not inclined to according to Mr.Saraogi is not inclined to permit permit permit the petitioner to have the works the petitioner to have the works the petitioner to have the works regularised. regularised. regularised. He is not issuing a No-Objection He is not issuing a No-Objection He is not issuing a No-Objection Certificate Certificate Certificate (NOC). In that view, the difficulty (NOC). In that view, the difficulty (NOC). In that view, the difficulty according according according to Mr.Saraogi is that the Collector has to Mr.Saraogi is that the Collector has to Mr.Saraogi is that the Collector has threatened threatened threatened demolition by issuing notice dated 28th demolition by issuing notice dated 28th demolition by issuing notice dated 28th January, January, January, 2008 under section 488 of the Act but, the 2008 under section 488 of the Act but, the 2008 under section 488 of the Act but, the landlord landlord landlord having withheld the permission, the having withheld the permission, the having withheld the permission, the petitioner petitioner petitioner will face demolition. will face demolition. will face demolition. 4. 4. 4. In my view, merely because now the landlord is In my view, merely because now the landlord is In my view, merely because now the landlord is impleaded impleaded impleaded in the fresh round and litigation that by in the fresh round and litigation that by in the fresh round and litigation that by itself itself itself does not permit this Court to reach a does not permit this Court to reach a does not permit this Court to reach a different different different conclusion. All requests have been conclusion. All requests have been conclusion. All requests have been rejected. rejected. rejected. That apart, works have been found to be That apart, works have been found to be That apart, works have been found to be unauthorised unauthorised unauthorised by the Local Body which has an by the Local Body which has an by the Local Body which has an independent independent independent power to issue notices under the power to issue notices under the power to issue notices under the Municipal Municipal Municipal Act and take necessary action. Its Act and take necessary action. Its Act and take necessary action. Its action action action is not vitiated in any manner. Request for is not vitiated in any manner. Request for is not vitiated in any manner. Request for regularisation regularisation regularisation is also not something, which is a is also not something, which is a is also not something, which is a right right right conferred by law. The petitioner sought conferred by law. The petitioner sought conferred by law. The petitioner sought 4 liberty liberty liberty of this Court to move an application for of this Court to move an application for of this Court to move an application for regularisation regularisation regularisation which application was also which application was also which application was also considered considered considered by the Local Authority/BMC and has been by the Local Authority/BMC and has been by the Local Authority/BMC and has been rejected. rejected. rejected. The plain duty of the petitioner was The plain duty of the petitioner was The plain duty of the petitioner was thereafter thereafter thereafter to comply with the notice but he moved to comply with the notice but he moved to comply with the notice but he moved the the the Minister who has not been able to assist him in Minister who has not been able to assist him in Minister who has not been able to assist him in any any any manner. In such circumstances, when repeatedly manner. In such circumstances, when repeatedly manner. In such circumstances, when repeatedly action action action of the local body is found to be in of the local body is found to be in of the local body is found to be in accordance accordance accordance with law, no reliefs can be granted to with law, no reliefs can be granted to with law, no reliefs can be granted to the the the petitioner under Article 227 of the petitioner under Article 227 of the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution Constitution Constitution of India. That would be putting a of India. That would be putting a of India. That would be putting a premium premium premium on the unauthorised action and illegality on the unauthorised action and illegality on the unauthorised action and illegality committed committed committed by the petitioner. by the petitioner. by the petitioner. 5. 5. 5. The Writ Jurisdiction is not meant to assist The Writ Jurisdiction is not meant to assist The Writ Jurisdiction is not meant to assist such such such a litigant. Petition is summarily dismissed. a litigant. Petition is summarily dismissed. a litigant. Petition is summarily dismissed. 6. 6. 6. At this stage, Mr.Saraogi for the Petitioner At this stage, Mr.Saraogi for the Petitioner At this stage, Mr.Saraogi for the Petitioner prays prays prays for continuation of ad interim order dated for continuation of ad interim order dated for continuation of ad interim order dated 30th 30th 30th January, 2008 so as to enable the petitioner January, 2008 so as to enable the petitioner January, 2008 so as to enable the petitioner to to to comply with the notice or remove himself from comply with the notice or remove himself from comply with the notice or remove himself from the the the subject premises. That request is opposed by subject premises. That request is opposed by subject premises. That request is opposed by Mr.Bhor. Mr.Bhor. Mr.Bhor. Considering the fact that the petitioner Considering the fact that the petitioner Considering the fact that the petitioner has has has been litigating for the last nearly three been litigating for the last nearly three been litigating for the last nearly three years, years, years, request of Mr.Saraogi for a longer time request of Mr.Saraogi for a longer time request of Mr.Saraogi for a longer time cannot cannot cannot be granted but, the ad interim order is be granted but, the ad interim order is be granted but, the ad interim order is continued continued continued for the period of three weeks. No for the period of three weeks. No for the period of three weeks. No further further further extension is granted. extension is granted. extension is granted. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, (S.C.Dharmadhikari, (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J) J) J)