M/S. G. L.Hotel v. Muncipal Commissioner Of Brihanmumbai And ORS.

203-wp-1295-04 dss

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1295 OF 2004 M/s. G.L. Hotel ...

Petitioner Vs.

Municipal Commissioner of Brihanmumbai & Ors.

...

Respondents *** None for both the parties.

*** CORAM : V. M. KANADE, AND M. S. SONAK, JJ.

DATE : JULY 26, 2016.

P. C.

1] On 24 March 2004, Rule was issued in this petition, only on the question of validity of Section 217 (5) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (said Act). In the petition, as originally instituted, there was no challenge to any of the provisions contained in Section 217 of the said Act. However, by way of amendment, the petitioner has challenged Sections 217(2) (d) and Section 217 (5) of the said Act. As noticed earlier, Rule was however, granted only on the question of validity of Section 217 (5) of the said Act.

1 / 2

203-wp-1295-04 2] The Division Bench of this Court, in case of Peninsyla Land Ltd. V/s. Brihan Mumbai Mahanagarpalika & ors. - 2009 (2) Bom. C. R. 806, has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 217(5) of the said Act. Similarly, learned Single Judge of this Court in case of Elora Construction Co. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay - AIR 1980 Bom. 162, has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 217(2)(d) of the said Act. The decision in case of Elora Construction Co. (supra), was in fact noted with approval by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Gujarat Agro Industries Co. Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad & ors. - (1999 ) 4 SCC 468.

3] We have, in the absence of learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the grounds raised in the petition, including the grounds introduced by way of amendment. We find that no grounds have been raised to attack the constitutional validity of Section 217(5) of the said Act. In any case, now that the constitutional validity of Section 217 (5) of the said Act has already been upheld by this Court in case of Peninsyla Land Ltd. (supra), this petition is required to be dismissed. Accordingly, we dismiss this petition. Rule is discharged. Interim order is vacated.

[M. S. SONAK, J.] [V. M. KANADE, J.] 2 / 2