Bombay High Court
Zulfikar Ali Abdul Rahim Shaikh vs The Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 14 September, 2022
Author: R.D. Dhanuka
Bench: R.D. Dhanuka
Digitally signed
by SUMEDH
SUMEDH NAMDEO
NAMDEO SONAWANE
SONAWANE Date:
2022.09.15
10:43:53 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3003 OF 2022
Zulfikar Ali Abdul Rahil Shaikh .. Petitioner
v/s.
The Municipal Corporation of
Greater Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents
Mr. Amit Jamsandekar a/w Mr. Vignesh Kamath, Mr. Viquar Rajguru,
Ms. Mahima Sharma i/by SA Legal Advocates & Association, for the
petitioner.
Ms. Madhuri More i/by Mr. Sunil Sonawane, for the respondent Nos.1 to
4 (MCGM).
CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA &
KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
DATED : 14TH SEPTEMBER, 2022. P.C. :
1. Mr. Jamsandekar, learned counsel for the petitioner states that all the respondents are served. None appears for respondent No.5 when matter was called out.
2. Learned counsel invited our attention to the order passed by this Court dated 15th November 2021 in writ petition No.1412 of 1/3
4.wp.3003.22.doc sns 2021 filed by his clients granting liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the Municipal Corporation in respect of his grievance regarding the certified list of tenant and further directing the Municipal Corporation to grant personal hearing to the petitioner and the respondent no.5 herein before deciding the representation. He states that the certified list of tenants proposed by the Municipal Corporation is without considering the representation made by the petitioner and also without granting any personal hearing to the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation is not in a position to state whether any personal hearing was granted to the petitioner or not before issuing certified list of tenants. The certified list of tenants prepared by Municipal Corporation does not indicate whether any hearing was granted to the petitioner or not while excluding the name of the petitioner. The said list also does not indicate whether the representation made by the petitioner was considered or not. No reasons are recorded while preparing the certified list of tenants.
4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 waive service. Issue notice upon respondent No.5 returnable on 17th October 2022 to be placed High on Board. Humdast is permitted. In addition to the 2/3
4.wp.3003.22.doc sns Court notice, the petitioner is permitted to serve the respondents by private service. Municipal Corporation is directed to file affidavit in reply within three weeks from today. Respondent No. 5 is directed to file reply within three weeks from the date of service of the papers and proceedings. Rejoinder, if any shall be filed within one week thereafter.
5. Respondent No.5 is directed not to create any third party rights in respect of the commercial premises of 3546.52 sq.ft. carpet area on the ground floor in the building under construction till the next date.
6. It is made clear that the construction being carried out by respondent No.5 would be subject to further orders passed by this Court.
7. Petitioner is directed to convey this order to respondent No.5 for information and compliance. Parties to act upon authenticated copy of this order.
(KAMAL KHATA, J.) (R.D.DHANUKA, J.)
3/3
4.wp.3003.22.doc
sns