Bombay High Court
M/S. Vimal Builders And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And 4 Ors on 15 November, 2021
Bench: G.S. Patel, Madhav J. Jamdar
10-OSWP136-2017.DOC
Arun
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 136 OF 2017
Vimal Builders & Anr ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors ...Respondents
Mr Mayur Khandeparkar, with Samit Shukla and Anjali Shah, i/b
DSK Legal, for the Petitioners.
Mr Manish Upadhye, AGP, for Respondent No.1- State.
Mr Vijay D Patil, for Respondent No.2-SRA.
Ms Sheetal, for MCGM.
CORAM: G.S. Patel &
Madhav J. Jamdar, JJ.
DATED: 15th November 2021 PC:-
1. Prima facie, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai is in contempt not only of this Court's order of 7th April 2016 but also of the Supreme Court's order of 22nd July 2016.
2. We are singularly unimpressed with the argument that the ARUN MCGM no longer has a readily available record of this matter and RAMCHNDRA SANKPAL even less impressed by the submission that some standing Senior Digitally signed by ARUN RAMCHNDRA SANKPAL Advocate is to appear, and that we should, for either or both these Date: 2021.11.16 15:32:25 +0530 reasons, adjourn in November 2021 a petition of 2017 Page 1 of 4 15th November 2021 10-OSWP136-2017.DOC
3. The order of the High Court at pages 67 to 69 and of the Supreme Court at pages 70-71 are abundantly clear. We reproduce both orders below so that there is no prospect of ambiguity.
High Court Order dated 7th April 2016
1. On 4th April, 2016, the petitioners have filed an affidavit and in para 14 thereof at running page 192, affidavit states as under:-
"14. I say that today Petitioners have not submitted any proposal under D.C.R. 33(7) in respect of 60 tenants and 4 V.L.T's as per the said clause 7.7 of DCR 33(10). If Petitioners submit the proposal as per law, the same shall be expeditiously considered by corporation in lines of corporation policy of 05.05.2012 and above said Transfer/Legal Heir policy dtd. 08/12/2015 for certifying eligibility of the tenants/VLT's in the format of Annexure-II and accordingly to grant Corporations NOC to SRA to consider the joint proposal as per the said clause 7.7 of DCR 33(10) subject to payment of Capitalized Value."
2. We find that the corporation's insistence on a formal proposal from the Petitioners and for scrutiny of documents in relation to the 60 tenants and 4 vacant land tenants cannot be granted.
3. The corporation has complete record of these occupants and it is time that the Corporation scrutinises and verifies it. For that purpose, we grant the corporation 6 weeks' time from today. Upon such scrutiny and verification, if these occupants are entitled to the benefit of a scheme/project and which is being implemented by the petitioners, then, it is the corporations obligation and duty to ensure their removal from the site Page 2 of 4 15th November 2021 10-OSWP136-2017.DOC so that the scheme goes through. Once a limited direction is sought and of this nature that the corporation to proceed in accordance with law against these occupants, then, the writ petition need not be kept pending. We clarify that the corporation must initiate prompt steps after such scrutiny is complete. We, therefore, expect it to commence the action in accordance with the law for their removal within four weeks from the date the scrutiny and verification is complete.
4. It is now definitely not expected from the SRA to insist on further compliances for what the corporation certifies as this list of occupants and vacant land tenants would partake the character of Annexure II. It is that which would be acted upon and by all authorities. Supreme Court Order dated 22nd July 2016 Having perused the impugned order, we find no justification whatsoever to interfere therewith, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
However, we agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the directions contained in paragraph 3 need to be clarified. It is accordingly clarified, that, in the first instance, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai will carry out scrutiny and verification, whether the occupants are entitled to the benefit of a scheme/project, implementation whereof has been sought by the petitioners before the High Court. Upon the Corporation taking a decision on the matter, the other directions will follow, subject to the Corporation's decision.
With the aforesaid clarification, the special leave petition is disposed of."
(Emphasis added) Page 3 of 4 15th November 2021 10-OSWP136-2017.DOC
4. We are told that despite these completely unambiguous orders, the MCGM has even now not done the process of scrutiny and verification. Orders of this Court and of the Supreme Court cannot be undermined and subverted, and most emphatically not by a public authority.
5. The Municipal Corporation is to complete the scrutiny and verification of occupants before Monday, 22nd November 2021. There will be no extension of time under any circumstances. We specifically reject the oral application for a longer date. The MCGM has done nothing for six years after the orders of the High Court and the Supreme Court were passed in 2016. The MCGM has no right or standing to seek longer dates.
6. Hence, if this scrutiny and verification are not done by that date, we intent to initiate suo-moto contempt against all officers responsible of the MCGM.
7. The matter will be listed along with Writ Petition (L) no. 1440 of 2019, filed by some Petitioners against the SRA, on 22nd November 2021.
8. Previous order, if any, to continue until next date.
9. All concerned will act on production of a digitally signed copy of this order.
(Madhav J. Jamdar, J.) (G. S. Patel, J) Page 4 of 4 15th November 2021