Bombay High Court
Municipalcorporation Of City Of Vasai ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 December, 2023
Author: G.S. Patel
Bench: G.S. Patel
908-ASWP-4420-2011+.DOC
Sumedh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4420 OF 2011
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2027 OF 2019
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2598 OF 2011
WITH
REVIEW PETITION NO. 56 OF 2016
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2820 OF 2013
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 276 OF 2020
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION (ST) NO. 8410 OF 2019
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 5784 OF 2021
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 2880 OF 2021
WITH
REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO. 6913 OF 2016
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 4420 OF 2011
Digitally
signed by
SUMEDH
SUMEDH NAMDEO
NAMDEO SONAWANE
SONAWANE Date:
2023.12.06
10:55:02
+0530 Page 1 of 7
5th December 2023
::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2023 04:34:41 :::
908-ASWP-4420-2011+.DOC
Municipal Corporation of City of Vasai Virar ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4365 OF 2010
Haresh Gopal Warane ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4751 OF 2015
Jimmy Mates Gonsalves ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4417 OF 2011
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1479 OF 2011
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 4417 OF 2011
Mahesh Sitaram Desai ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4419 OF 2011
Page 2 of 7
5th December 2023
::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2023 04:34:41 :::
908-ASWP-4420-2011+.DOC
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1404 OF 2011
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 4419 OF 2011
Haresh Gopal Warane ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5065 OF 2011
Ravindra L Purushottam Patil ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6201 OF 2011
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2027 OF 2019
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 6201 OF 2011
Prabhat Kumar Narendra Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10824 OF 2011
Vilas Sukur Tare ...Petitioner
Page 3 of 7
5th December 2023
::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2023 04:34:41 :::
908-ASWP-4420-2011+.DOC
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13155 OF 2019
Jimmy Mates Gonsalves & Anr ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors ...Respondents
Mr Shreepad Murthy, with Ranjit Agashe, Pranil Lahigade, i/b
Vinsha Acharya, Anand Nikhal, for the Applicant in
CAWST/8410/2019.
Mr V Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate, for the Petitioner in
WP/4419/2011.
Dr Abhinav Chandrachud, with V Ghia, Saurabh Raut, i/b Sachin
Punde, for the Petitioner in WP/4417/2011.
Mr Akshay J Kandarkar, i/b RS Doctor, for the Petitioner in
WP/4365/2010 & 4419/2011.
Mr Manish Kelkar, for the Applicant in IAST/5784/2021.
Mr Indrajeet R Kulkarni, for the Applicant in IAST/2880/2021.
Ms Neeta P Karnik,for the Applicant in CAW/2027/2022.
Mr Mayuresh Nagle, i/b Anthony Floriyen Fozz, for the Petitioner in
WP/4420/2011, WP/13155/2019 and WP/4751/2015.
Mr Nitin Pradhan, with SD Khot, Danish Patel, for Respondent in
WP/4420/2011.
Mr MR Bohra, i/b SB Shetye, for the Respondent-SEC.
Mr PP Kakade, GP, with AI Patel, Addl. GP & AA Alaspurkar, AGP,
for the Respondent-State.
CORAM G.S. Patel &
Kamal Khata, JJ.
DATED: 5th December 2023 PC:- Page 4 of 7 5th December 2023 ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2023 04:34:41 ::: 908-ASWP-4420-2011+.DOC
1. This group of Petitions have unfortunately been pending since 2011. There are subsequent Interim Applications, Civil Applications and so on and at least one of the Writ Petitions is of 2010. They all relate to the Municipal Corporation of the City of Vasai Virar.
2. The lead Writ Petition No 4420 of 2011 has been admitted. The question raised in these Petitions is whether by a notification the State Government can exclude certain villages from the local limits of a Municipal Corporation and continue them as villages
3. This is inter alia said to be linked to an interpretation of Article 243-Q of the Constitution of India. That is an Article in Part IX-A inserted by the 74th amendment. Specific reference is drawn to sub-clause (1) of Article 243-Q and its three further sub-clauses, and to sub-clause (2).
4. The other argument is in relation to Section 3(3)(a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 ("MMC Act"). The submission here is that these provisions of the MMC Act are ultra vires Article 243-Q of the Constitution. It is also submitted that Article 243-Q(2) defines certain phrases such as 'transitional area', 'smaller urban area' and 'larger area' and these are factors that the State Government cannot possibly ignore when it is assessing the questions of what areas/villages ought to be the local limits of a Municipal Corporation. Section 3(3)(a) of the MMC Act does not use the word "increase" in relation to the limits of a Municipal Corporation. It uses the word "alter".
Page 5 of 75th December 2023 ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2023 04:34:41 ::: 908-ASWP-4420-2011+.DOC
5. The other aspect of the matter is in the operative portion of Section 3(3)(a) of the MMC Act because this self-evidently requires 'consultation' with the Corporation in question. Then there is an additional argument based on Section 3(3)(b) of the MMC Act.
6. We note this conspectus for a simple reason. Mr Kakade today has instructions to tender a copy of the communication dated yesterday which says that the matter is now under active consideration and in process with the State Government. A copy of this communication is taken on record and marked "X1" for identification with today's date. But the Petitioners who want the inclusion of the 29 villages in Vasai Virar City Municipal Corporation ("VVCMC") in one voice say that they are significantly unimpressed and even underwhelmed by the communication Mr Kakade shows us, for the simple reason that for the last 10 years or more this seems to happen every time the matter is listed in Court. The result has been this indefinite delaying of the matter to accommodate the Government and, to use Ms Karnik's phraseology, results in a constant somersaulting to the extent that at one point there was even an Affidavit confirming a withdrawal of the notification. What got withdrawn instead was the Affidavit, not the notification.
7. Speaking purely from the point of view of pendency of matters before this court, we are not prepared to grant the Government indefinite and repeated adjournments like this. One way or the other, the Government must make up its mind. It either supports the impugned notification or it abandons it. This third via Page 6 of 7 5th December 2023 ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2023 04:34:41 ::: 908-ASWP-4420-2011+.DOC media of saying that the Government might or might be supporting it is unacceptable to us.
8. Fortunately for Mr Kakade, we are compelled to give him time. Apart from anything else we will not be able to complete the final hearing in the next two weeks or so. But this time accommodation is also the last and final one, and is only by way of courtesy to the Government and its law officers.
9. We therefore list the entire group peremptorily for hearing and final disposal on 16th January 2024 at 2.30 pm, a date commonly agreed by all before us. We make it clear that on that date the impugned notification will either unequivocally be stated to us to having been withdrawn by the State Government or we will proceed with the Petitions on merits.
(Kamal Khata, J) (G. S. Patel, J) Page 7 of 7 5th December 2023 ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2023 04:34:41 :::