The appellant challenged a City Civil Court order that validated a notice under Section 314 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (MMC Act) regarding a structure on municipal dumping ground -- The High Court found that Section 314 of the MMC Act requires the Commissioner to specify which provision (Sections 312, 313 or 313A) is contravened before issuing notice -- The impugned notice failed to do so, making it mechanical and without jurisdiction -- The Court quashed the notice and the lower court order, allowing the appeal without addressing other merits -- The respondent was not precluded from issuing a fresh notice in accordance with law
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay allowed an appeal challenging a City Civil Court order that upheld a notice under Section 314 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (MMC Act) -- The Court held that Section 314 of the MMC Act empowers the Commissioner to remove structures without notice only if there is contravention of Sections 312, 313 or 313A of the MMC Act -- The Commissioner must satisfy himself about such contravention before issuing notice under Section 314 -- This satisfaction must be reflected in the notice by specifying which provision is contravened -- In this case, the impugned notice dated 28 April 2008 did not specify any contravention of Sections 312, 313 or 313A -- Therefore, the notice was issued mechanically without application of mind and failed jurisdictional conditions under Section 314 of the MMC Act -- The Court quashed the notice and the lower court order, allowing the appeal -- The Court did not address other contentions or an application for additional evidence since the jurisdictional defect was dispositive
The appeal was allowed -- The impugned order dated 23 February 2011 was quashed and set aside -- The notice under Section 314 of the MMC Act dated 28 April 2008 was quashed as invalid -- The suit was decreed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) -- The respondent was not precluded from issuing fresh notice in accordance with law
Citation: 2026 LawText (BOM) (01) 92
Case Number: First Appeal No. 653 of 2011 with Civil Application No. 2893 of 2011
Date of Decision: 2026-01-20
Case Title: The Issue of Consideration was whether the notice issued under Section 314 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (MMC Act) was valid given it did not specify which provision (Sections 312, 313 or 313A) was contravened
Before Judge: Jitendra Jain, J.
Advocate(s): Mr. Pradeep J. Thorat i/b Mr. P. B. Gujar for the Appellant, Ms. Pallavi Khale i/b. Ms. Komal Punjabi for Respondent No.1
Appellant: Sailappan Sodali Muthu
Respondent: The Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai
Nature of Litigation: Civil appeal challenging a municipal notice under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (MMC Act)
Remedy Sought: The appellant sought declaration that the notice under Section 314 of the MMC Act dated 28 April 2008 is illegal, bad in law, null and void
Filing Reason: The appellant contested the validity of a notice issued by the Municipal Corporation regarding a structure on dumping ground
Previous Decisions: City Civil Court order dated 23 February 2011 held the notice under Section 314 of the MMC Act valid and that the structure was on Corporation dumping ground
Issues: Whether the notice under Section 314 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (MMC Act) was valid given it did not specify contravention of Sections 312, 313 or 313A
Submissions/Arguments: The appellant contended the notice was illegal and void -- The respondent did not file written statement to justify the contravention
Ratio Decidendi: For a notice under Section 314 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (MMC Act) to be valid, the Commissioner must specify which provision (Sections 312, 313 or 313A) is contravened -- Failure to specify renders the notice mechanical, without application of mind, and lacking jurisdictional foundation -- Such defect is fatal to the notice's validity
Judgment Excerpts: Section 314 of the MMC Act empowers the Commissioner to remove without notice anything erected, deposited or hawked in contravention of Sections 312, 313 or 313A of the MMC Act -- The said satisfaction has to be reflected in the notice which is issued -- In the instant case, the impugned notice does not specify as to which of the provisions of the MMC Act viz., Sections 312, 313, 313A is contravened -- The notice on the face of it appears to have been issued mechanically and without application of mind -- Therefore, in the instant case, the respondent-Corporation has failed to satisfy jurisdictional condition for issuance of notice under Section 314 of the MMC Act -- Since the notice itself does not satisfy the jurisdictional condition required under Section 314 of the MMC Act, in my view the impugned notice cannot be sustained and has to be quashed and set aside
Procedural History: Notice under Section 314 of the MMC Act issued on 28 April 2008 -- City Civil Court order dated 23 February 2011 upheld the notice -- Appeal filed in High Court as First Appeal No. 653 of 2011 -- High Court heard arguments and allowed appeal on 20 January 2026
