Case Note & Summary
The petitioners challenged notices and orders issued under Section 212 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 by the Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation, which required them to pull down parts of their buildings allegedly within the regular line of the street. The petitioners argued that the street line was not prescribed in accordance with Section 210, a condition precedent for invoking Section 212(1). They also contended that the orders under Section 212(2) were passed without the approval of the Standing Committee, and that the Standing Committee's resolution delegating its power to the Commissioner was invalid as the Committee lacked statutory authority to delegate. The court examined the provisions and found merit in the submissions. It held that the power under Section 212(1) can only be exercised if a street line is prescribed under Section 210, and that the orders under Section 212(2) require prior approval of the Standing Committee, which cannot be delegated. The court quashed the impugned notices and orders.
Headnote
A) Municipal Law - Demolition of Building - Section 212(1) and (2) of Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 - Condition Precedent - The power under Section 212(1) can be invoked only if a street line has been prescribed in accordance with Section 210 of the Act. The court examined whether the street line was validly prescribed. (Paras 2-3)
B) Municipal Law - Delegation of Powers - Section 212(2) of Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 - Standing Committee - The Standing Committee has no statutory power to delegate its approval function under Section 212(2) to the Commissioner or other officers. Any delegation by resolution is invalid. (Para 3)
C) Municipal Law - Demolition Order - Section 212(2) of Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 - Approval of Standing Committee - The order under Section 212(2) requiring pulling down of building can be passed only with the prior approval of the Standing Committee. In the absence of such approval, the order is illegal. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the notices and orders under Section 212 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 are valid when the street line is not prescribed under Section 210 and when the Standing Committee's approval was not obtained or its delegation was invalid.
Final Decision
The court issued rule and disposed of the petitions by quashing the impugned notices and orders under Section 212 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949.
Law Points
- Condition precedent for Section 212(1) is prescription of street line under Section 210
- Standing Committee cannot delegate its power under Section 212(2)
- Approval of Standing Committee is mandatory before passing order under Section 212(2)
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (07) 128
Writ Petition No.6403 of 2016 and Writ Petition No.6026 of 2016
A. S. Oka, Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi
Mr. Rahul Shivaji Kadam for Petitioner, Mr. A. S. Rao for Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation, Mr. Manish M. Pabale, AGP for State of Maharashtra
Shri Amodkumar Gangwar and Shri Nilesh R. Ghadge
State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging notices and orders under Section 212 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 for demolition of buildings.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of notices issued under Section 212(1) and orders passed under Section 212(2) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949.
Filing Reason
Petitioners alleged that the street line was not prescribed under Section 210 and that the orders were passed without approval of the Standing Committee, and that the delegation of power by the Standing Committee was invalid.
Issues
Whether the condition precedent for invoking Section 212(1) i.e., prescription of street line under Section 210 was satisfied?
Whether the orders under Section 212(2) were passed with the approval of the Standing Committee?
Whether the Standing Committee can delegate its power under Section 212(2) to the Commissioner or other officers?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that street line was not prescribed in accordance with Section 210, hence Section 212 could not be invoked.
Petitioners argued that orders under Section 212(2) were passed without approval of Standing Committee.
Petitioners argued that Standing Committee had no power to delegate its approval function under Section 212(2).
Ratio Decidendi
The power under Section 212(1) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 can be exercised only if a street line is prescribed under Section 210. The order under Section 212(2) requires prior approval of the Standing Committee, and the Standing Committee has no statutory power to delegate this function.
Judgment Excerpts
The challenge in these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the notices issued under Subsection 1 of Section 212 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 and the orders passed by the designated officer under subsection 2 of Section 212 of the said Act.
The first submission is that the condition precedent for invoking Subsection 1 of Section 212 is that a street line has to be prescribed in accordance with Section 210 of the said Act.
It is submitted that in the present case when the impugned orders were passed by the designated officer under Sub section 2 of Section 212, there was no approval of the Standing Committee.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949: Section 210, Section 212(1), Section 212(2)
- Constitution of India: Article 226
