Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

30. In Abdul Karim Ahmed Mansoori (supra) challenge before Division Bench of this Court was to a notice issued under Section 354A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. The Petitioner therein had filed a Suit challenging the said notice in which ad-interim relief was refused and Appeal from Order was also withdrawn. When the notice was questioned in a Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, one of the issues for consideration was bar of jurisdiction under Section 515A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. The Division Bench referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in Shiv Kumar k 21/35 902 cra 153.16 n 679.16 as.doc Chadha vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi12 dealing with pari materia provisions of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act in which it was held that Court should ordinarily not entertain a Suit in connection with demolition in terms of Section 343 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act but Suit can be entertained only if Court is of the prima facie opinion that the order is nullity in the eyes of law because of any jurisdictional error in exercise of power by the Commissioner or where the order is outside the law. The conclusions of the Apex Court in paragraph 29 of the judgment in Shiv Kumar Chadha (supra) read thus:

"29. It is well-known that in most of the cities building regulations and bye- laws have been framed, still it has been discovered that constructions have been made without any sanction or in contravention of the sanctioned plan, and such constructions have continued without any intervention. There cannot be two opinions that the regulations and bye- laws in respect of buildings, are meant to serve the public interest. But at the same time it cannot be held that in all circumstances, the authorities entrusted with the demolition of unauthorised constructions, have exclusive power, to the absolute exclusion of the power of the Court. In some special cases where "jurisdictional error" on the part of the Corporation is established, a suit shall be maintainable. According to us, (1) The Court should not ordinarily entertain a suit in connection with the proceedings initiated for demolition, by the Commissioner, in terms of section 343 (1) of the Corporation Act. The Court should direct the persons aggrieved to pursue the remedy before the Appellate Tribunal and then before the Administrator in accordance with the provisions of the said Act.

(2) The Court should entertain a suit questioning the validity of an order passed under section 343 of the Act. only if the Court is of Prima facie opinion that the order is nullity in the eyes of law because of any "jurisdictional error" in exercise of the power by the commissioner or that the order is outside the Act."

31. The Division Bench in Abdul Karim Ahmed Mansoori (supra) also considered the judgment of this Court in Akola Municipal Corporation (supra) and agreed with a view expressed therein. The Division Bench held in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 as under: