Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Pravin Jagdish Bhargav, filed a suit challenging a letter dated 30th January 1995 from the Deputy Municipal Commissioner, Zone-III, of the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai (respondent). The letter rejected the appellant's reply to a notice dated 16th October 1993 issued under Section 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, which alleged unauthorized construction of a 4 meters x 4 meters structure with brick masonry and A.C. sheet roof. The appellant claimed the structure existed prior to the notice and sought a temporary injunction to restrain demolition. The trial court dismissed the notice of motion for temporary injunction on 7th November 1996. The appellant appealed. The High Court observed that the impugned letter was not a final order under Section 351 and that the appellant had not been given an opportunity of hearing before the rejection of his reply. The court held that principles of natural justice required that the appellant be heard before any adverse order. The appeal was allowed, the trial court's order was set aside, and the respondent was directed to hear the appellant before taking any coercive action. The court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Headnote
A) Municipal Law - Unauthorized Construction - Section 351 of Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - Notice of Demolition - The appellant challenged a letter dated 30th January 1995 by which the Deputy Municipal Commissioner did not accept the appellant's reply to a notice under Section 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, alleging unauthorized construction of 4 meters x 4 meters with brick masonry and A.C. sheet roof. The trial court dismissed the temporary injunction application. The High Court held that the impugned letter was not a final order under Section 351 and that the appellant was entitled to an opportunity of hearing before any adverse order. The court set aside the trial court's order and directed the respondent to hear the appellant before taking any coercive action. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the notice dated 30th January 1995 issued under Section 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, rejecting the appellant's reply to the earlier notice, was valid and whether the appellant was entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from demolishing the structure.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 7th November 1996 passed by the trial court is set aside. The respondent is directed to hear the appellant before taking any coercive action in pursuance of the notice dated 16th October 1993. The notice of motion for temporary injunction is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Section 351 of Bombay Municipal Corporation Act
- 1888
- Notice of Demolition
- Natural Justice
- Opportunity of Hearing
- Unauthorized Construction
- Temporary Injunction
