Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s Mahendra Builders, a partnership firm, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 24 January 2013 passed by the Municipal Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (respondent no.3). The Commissioner had held that the petitioner's building proposal had lapsed under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The petitioner sought quashing of this order. The respondents included the State of Maharashtra, the Municipal Corporation, its Commissioner, the Executive Engineer, and three individuals (Parvez Ghaswalla, Ruksana Ghaswalla, and Kashan Ghaswalla) who were carrying on business in the name of Empire Royale Hotel. The petition was heard by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice Anoop V. Mohta and Justice G.S. Kulkarni. The court reserved judgment on 29 January 2016 and pronounced it on 11 February 2016. The court held that the Commissioner's decision under Section 351 is final and not subject to judicial review on merits unless it is perverse or without jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Municipal Law - Finality of Commissioner's Decision - Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - The Commissioner's decision on whether a building proposal has lapsed is declared final by the statute and cannot be interfered with by the High Court under Article 226 unless it is perverse or without jurisdiction. The court held that the Commissioner's order dated 24 January 2013 was a valid exercise of power and the petition challenging it was dismissed. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of the Municipal Commissioner under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 holding that the building proposal had lapsed is final and not amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The order of the Municipal Commissioner dated 24 January 2013 is upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Finality of Commissioner's decision under Section 351 of MMC Act
- 1888
- Scope of judicial review under Article 226
- Interpretation of 'final' in municipal legislation
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (02) 47
WRIT PETITION NO.315 OF 2013
Anoop V. Mohta, G.S. Kulkarni
Mr. Aspi Chinoy Sr. Advocate a/w Mr. P.S. Dani Sr. Advocate i/b Mrs. Janhvi Bejoy for Petitioners, Ms. Geeta Shastri Additional Government Pleader a/w Ms. Anjali Helekar Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent no.1, Mr. Kevic Setalwad Sr. Advocate a/w Mr. H.C. Pimple for Respondent nos.2 to 4, Mr. Zai Andharujina a/w Ms. Sonal i/b Ms. Kavita Shah for Respondent nos.5 to 7
The State of Maharashtra, The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, The Municipal Commissioner, The Executive Engineer Building Proposal City-II, Parvez S/o Mohammed Hussain Ghaswalla, Ruksana Khalid Ghaswalla, Kashan Khalid Ghaswalla
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 challenging the order of the Municipal Commissioner holding that the building proposal had lapsed.
Remedy Sought
Quashing and setting aside of the order dated 24 January 2013 passed by the Municipal Commissioner.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's building proposal was held to have lapsed by the Municipal Commissioner under Section 351 of the MMC Act, 1888.
Previous Decisions
The Municipal Commissioner passed the order dated 24 January 2013 holding that the proposal had lapsed.
Issues
Whether the order of the Municipal Commissioner under Section 351 of the MMC Act, 1888 is final and not subject to challenge under Article 226.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the Commissioner's order was erroneous and should be quashed.
Respondents argued that the Commissioner's decision is final under Section 351 and not amenable to judicial review.
Ratio Decidendi
The decision of the Municipal Commissioner under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 is final and cannot be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless it is perverse or without jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek quashing and setting aside of the order dated 24 January 2013 passed by the respondent no.3 the Municipal Commissioner of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation, whereby it is held that the proposal for r
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.315 of 2013 in the Bombay High Court challenging the order dated 24 January 2013 of the Municipal Commissioner. The petition was heard by a Division Bench, reserved on 29 January 2016, and pronounced on 11 February 2016.
Acts & Sections
- Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888: Section 351
- Constitution of India: Article 226
