Devang Dinesh Parmar v. The Mumbai Municipal Corporation

Urmila Ingale 51-cp-740-22.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION by URMILA PRAMOD INGALE Date:

2023.03.09 13:57:57 +0530 URMILA PRAMOD INGALE CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 740 OF 2022 IN SUO MOTU PIL NO. 1 OF 2020 Devang Dinesh Parmar ..Petitioner VS.

The Mumbai Municipal Corporation and ors...Respondents Mr. Dewang Dinesh Parmar, Petitioner-in-person. Mrs. N.M. Mehta, AGP for the State-Respondent No.3. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, ACJ & SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

DATED : MARCH 8, 2023 P.C. :

1.

The petitioner-in-person submits that the order is passed in Public Interest Litigation. The same is not complied with. According to the petitioner-in-person, a decree is obtained by fraud by the encroacher. The Corporation has preferred an appeal in the year 2012. The Corporation is not taking steps to expedite the hearing of the said appeal. In that sense, the Corporation has committed the contempt.

2.

It will not be possible for us to pass an order in as much as according to petitioner-in-person, the decree is 1/2

Urmila Ingale 51-cp-740-22.odt already passed in favour of the alleged encroacher. The same is in force. Unless the decree is set aside, prohibitory order should be in force. It will be open for the petitionerin-person to contend about the contempt if the decree is set aside and the Corporation does not take any action. In that event, the petitioner-in-person can approach this Court. It is for the Corporation to take steps for getting the appeal decided expeditiously.

3.

With the above observations, the contempt petition is disposed of. No costs.

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) 2/2