Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. On 1st September 2016 the matter was listed before Mr Justice KR Shriram. He was apparently solemnly presented this question by Senior Counsel engaged by the MCGM. Mr Justice Shriram felt that it would be appropriate to seek a clarification from Mr Justice Kathawalla and the matter has remained there since. No application has been made before Mr Justice Kathawalla for a clarification. While I do appreciate the approach preferred by Mr Justice Shriram, I am myself not persuaded to follow it. As is usual with the orders of Mr Justice Kathawalla, there is nothing remotely ambiguous in what he said on 4th December 2015. I do not believe any clarification is required. Indeed, I believe such a course is singularly ill- advised.

"8. I am told that a survey has been in fact carried out by the Collector and City Survey Officer. This notes the existence of the encroachments. The Receiver has subsequently filed a report saying that there are encroachments.
9. But everybody already knew that. The question was what was to be done about those encroachments. The matter was listed before Kathawalla J on 4th December 2015. After elaborately setting out the reliefs in the Motion before Dharmadhikari J and paragraphs 11 and 12 of that order, Kathawalla J noted that the Court Receiver had acted on the order, demarcated the suit property and carried out measurements. The Court Receiver had complained to the MCGM about the encroachments. The Corporation had failed to remove these I am unable to see the slightest ambiguity in Kathawalla J's directions. The Mumbai Municipal Corporation has been ordered to remove the encroachments. Even the MCGM agrees that there is nothing ambiguous about this directions. What the MCGM wants to know is whether Mr Justice Kathawalla ordered the planning authority to act in an autocratic, despotic and tyrannical manner not warranted by law, or whether his order requires the MCGM to follow the due process of law. The Motion is not just misconceived. It is utterly reckless, and I must confess it seems to me to be a quite considerable triumph of courage over legal understanding.
10. xxxxxx
11. I am unable to see the slightest ambiguity in Kathawalla J's directions. The Mumbai Municipal Corporation has been ordered to remove the encroachments. Even the MCGM agrees that there is nothing ambiguous about this directions. What the MCGM wants to know is whether Mr Justice Kathawalla ordered the planning authority to act in an autocratic, despotic and tyrannical manner not warranted by law, or whether his order requires the MCGM to follow the due process of law. The Motion is not just misconceived. It is utterly reckless, and I must confess it seems to me to be a quite considerable triumph of courage over legal understanding.