Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.23 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 393 in Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 [Entire Act]
Section 394 in Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 [Entire Act]
Section 395 in Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 [Entire Act]
Section 401 in Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 [Entire Act]
Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr vs Rajendra Shankar Patil on 23 July, 2010
With regard to the point of
maintainability of the present writ petition, this
Court derive support to uphold the writ petition as
maintainable, from the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the said Shalini Shyam Shetty (supra) case,
as mentioned above.
Municipal Corpn, Ludhiana vs Inderjit Singh & Anr on 1 October, 2008
Secondly, he says, that the writ petition is a pre-
matured one, the writ petitioner (Larica) having never
raised a grievance against the legality of sanction of
additional building plan, before the authorities, at
any point of time before. That, the writ petitioner
has never approached the Corporation for cancellation
of building sanction plan on the ground of fraud and
misrepresentation. The writ petitioner (Larica) has
Page 15 of 37
not ventilated its alleged grievance of any fraud and
misrepresentation committed on the part of the present
appellants for sanction of the additional building
plan, in its representation dated September 9, 2011,
before the respondent Corporation. It is stated that
the so-called representation of the writ petitioner
(Larica) does not comply with the requirements of
ingredients of any fraud and misrepresentation.
Therefore, according to the appellants, such a plea of
the writ petitioner (Larica) is only an afterthought.
That, no proceeding in terms of the specific
provisions of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act,
for cancellation of the additional building plan has
ever been sought to be espoused by the writ
petitioner. Also that no such proceeding under
provisions of section 397 of the said Act has ever
been undertaken by the respondent Corporation, by
complying with the formalities thereunder of affording
opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties,
before issuing an order for cancellation of the
building sanctioned plan. A judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has been relied on this, that is
reported in (2008) 13 Supreme Court Cases 506 [Municipal
Corporation, Ludhiana vs. Inderjit Singh & Anr.]. The
appellants have relied on the findings of the Court
therein, that compliance with the principles of
natural justice is a sine-qua-non, for the statutory
authority, by affording reasonable opportunity of
hearing to the affected parties, before issuing an
order of demolition of the alleged unauthorised
construction. In the present case, no such steps have
Page 16 of 37
been taken by the respondent Corporation, Mr. Basu,
Learned Senior Advocate, says.
Muni Suvrat-Swami Jain S.M.P. Sangh vs Arun Nathuram Gaikwad & Ors on 11 October, 2006
It has further been submitted that as per section
393 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, the
Municipal Commissioner is the only authority under the
law, for granting, modifying and cancelling a building
plan. That, unless there is gross illegality or
perversity in the process adopted by the said
authority in discharge of its statutory duty as above,
a court of equity would refuse to interfere with the
decision of the statutory authority. On this, Mr Basu
has relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported
in (2006) 8 Supreme Court Cases 590 [Muni Suvrat-Swami Jain
S.M.P. Sangh vs. Arun Nathuram Gaikwad].That the Hon'ble
Court has held that the Municipal Commissioner has the
discretion to issue a demolition order of an alleged
unauthorised construction. Also that the High Court
cannot, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, impede
by a mandatory order, the exercise of such discretion
by the said authority.
Mrs. Manju Bhatia & Anr vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr on 6 May, 1997
On behalf of the writ petitioner (Larica), Mr.
Kar, learned Senior Advocate, has made reference to
the objection letter dated September 09, 2011, sent by
his client to the respondent Corporation and says that
the factum of fraud and mis-representation, as has
been exercised while seeking sanction of the
additional building plan, has sufficiently been
brought on record by his client vide the said letter.
According to Mr. Kar, learned Senior Advocate, the
contentions in the said letter, would have been
sufficient for the respondent Corporation, to initiate
a proceeding under Section 397 of the said Act of
1980, in order to make an inquiry as to the mis-
representation and fraudulent conduct by the present
appellants, in obtaining the sanction of a plan.
That, the Municipal Corporation has failed, as a
public authority, to exercise power as vested in it by
law. That, the respondent Corporation having failed
miserably in following up the due procedure of law, in
redress of grievance of the writ petitioner (Larica),
is evident and gross. Under such circumstances, the
said writ petitioners/ respondents shall have redress
Page 20 of 37
of their grievance only before the writ court and
relegating it before the Corporation would be a futile
exercise as it has earlier neglected to perform its
statutory duties. Mr. Kar, learned Senior Advocate
relies on the decisions of a three Judges Bench of the
Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (1997) 6 SCC 370 (Manju
Bhatia (Mrs.) & Anr. vs. New Dehli Municipal Council &
Anr.), to submit that in view of the specific factual
background of this case as mentioned above, this court
would have ample authority to intervene. The following
portion of the judgment, he has relied on:-