Abbot Anthony Quinny v. State Of Maharashtra And 2 ORS.

oswp1126 ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1126 OF 2018 Abbot Anthony Quinny

...Petitioner

vs.

State of Maharashtra & Ors.

...Respondents

Mr.H.V.Kumarswami for the Petitioner Mr.Birendra Saraf a/w P. Dubash, Kalpesh Mehta, Vasim Shaikh i/b M/s.Pravin Mehta and Mithi Co. for the applicant in Chamber Summons Mr.G.W.Mattos, AGP for the respondent-State Ms Vandana Mahadik for MMC Mr.Niranjan Mogrre for applicant in Notice of Motion.

CORAM : A.S.OKA, & RIYAZ.I.CHAGLA,JJ.

DATE : APRIL 18, 2018 P.C.:

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The basic challenge is to the note prepared by the Joint Law Officer of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation on 6th June 2014. We have perused the said note. The Joint Law Officer has recorded his opinion on the subject referred to him. At highest, it can be stated that certain recommendations have been made by the Law Officer based on his opinion. We cannot entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein there is a challenge only to the opinion or recommendation of the Joint Law Officer of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation. The Mumbai Municipal Corporation is not bound by such opinion

oswp1126 or recommendation of the Law Officer. If any action has been taken on the basis of the opinion of the Joint Law Officer which affects the petitioner, he can always file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law for challenging the said action. Subject to what is observed above, writ petition is rejected. Pending Notice of Motion and Chamber Summons do not survive and the same are disposed of.

(RIYAZ.I.CHAGLA,J.) (A.S.OKA,J.)