Bombay High Court
Hasratali Mohammed Shah vs Municipal Corporation Of Gr. Mumbai And ... on 1 March, 2019
Author: Bharati H.Dangre
Bench: Ranjit More, Bharati H.Dangre
1/3 907 WPL 674-19.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 674 of 2019
Hasratali Mohammed Shah .. Petitioner
Versus
Muncipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai
and others .. Respondents
...
Mr. Asgar K. Ansari for the petitioner.
Ms. Sheetal Metkari for the MCGM.
Mr.A.L. Patki, AGP for the State.
CORAM: SHRI RANJIT MORE &
SMT. BHARATI H.DANGRE, JJ.
DATED : 1st MARCH 2019 P.C:-
1 Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
2 The petitioner is challenging the notices dated 1 st December 2018, and two notices dated 18th February 2018 and 25th February 2018 respectively issued under Section 3(Z)1 of Maharashtra Slum Improvement Clearance and Redevelopment Act 1971. It is the case of the petitioner that his representation dated 26th February 2019 for regularization/permission for setting up of telecommunication cell site/tower is not decided.
Learned counsel for the Corporation, however, submits that this application is already forwarded to Building and Proposal Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/03/2019 20:39:00 ::: 2/3 907 WPL 674-19.doc Department. A copy of the said application is annexed at Exhibit-D, pages 26 and 27. Having seen the copy of the said application, we find that the same is not for regularization, however, the petitioner has sought permission to set up telecommunication cell site/tower.
3 In the light of the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that liberty may be granted to the petitioner to make an application for regularization and protection may be granted to the petitioner till the competent authority of the respondent No.2 decides the petitioner's said application. The learned counsel for the Corporation makes a statement that if the application for regularization is made by the petitioner, appropriate decision would be taken in accordance with the law.
4 In the light of the above, we dispose of this petition by passing the following order :-
(i) It will be open for the petitioner to make an online application to the respondent Municipal Corporation for regularization of the mobile tower through a licensed Architect. If such an application is made within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be decided within a period of six weeks from the date of making the application.
Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/03/2019 20:39:00 ::: 3/3 907 WPL 674-19.doc
(ii) The order passed on the application be communicated to the petitioner or his licensed architect. Till the communication of the said order to the petitioner or his licensed architect, as the case may be, the status quo as of today in respect of the tower shall be maintained. If the order passed on the application for regularization is adverse to the petitioner, the said protection shall continue to operate for a period of three weeks from the date of communication of the order to the petitioner or his licensed architect.
(iii) If the application for regularization is not filed within the period stipulated above, the Corporation is at liberty to implement the notice impugned in the petition.
Petition stands disposed of.
5 All concerned to act upon a copy of this order duly authenticated by the Registry of this Court.
(SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.) (RANJIT MORE, J.) Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/03/2019 20:39:00 :::