Raghunath Sanjiva Shetty v. The Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai Thr. Designated Officer

1/2 943 AOL 37334-18.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER ST NO.37334 OF 2018 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION ST. NO.37335 OF 2018 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER ST NO.37334 OF 2018 Raghunath Sanjiva Shetty .. Appellant

Versus

The Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai .. Respondents ...

Mr.Rahul Kadam i/b Tushar R. Momaiya for the appellant. Mr.Santosh Parad i/b Mr.J.J. Xavier for respondent no.1 BMC. CORAM: SMT. BHARATI H.DANGRE, J.

(Vacation Court) DATED : 26th DECEMBER, 2018 P.C:- Not on board. Mentioned.

A short ground on which the Appeal from Order impugned is filed is that the reply filed by the appellant on 7th November 2018 addressed to the designated Officer West Ward Office, Mumbai has not been considered while passing the impugned order dated 30th November 2018. The order passed Tilak

2/2 943 AOL 37334-18.doc by the Assistant Engineer (B & F) M/West Ward categorically sets out that no reply has been submitted to the notice. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the said reply was duly tendered and it was also accompanied by the necessary documents which form part and parcel of the said AO. Learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation i.e. respondent no.1 does not dispute that the reply was not considered and in order to afford a fair opportunity to the appellant to substantiate his case, the Corporation would give one more opportunity to the appellant and would consider the reply and the documents tendered along with it. In the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Corporation is quashed and set aside.

Needless to say that the Corporation is duty bound to take into consideration the documents tendered by the appellant and it would pass a fresh order within a period of 30 days from today.

(SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.) Tilak