Yvonne Kale v. The Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai And 2 ORS.

by CHITRA SANJAY SONAWANE Date:

2022.09.06 17:29:46 +0530 CHITRA SANJAY SONAWANE 1 5-WP-2272-2019.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2272 OF 2019 Yvonne Kale ... Petitioner Vs.

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Others ... Respondents ------- Mr. Dushyant Krishnan i/b Garfeld Clarence Mendonca for the petitioners.

Miss Oorja Dhond i/b Mr. Sunil Sonawane for Respondent Nos.1 and 2-MCGM.

Mr.Eknath Dhokale, for Respondent no.3.

------- CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA & KAMAL KHATA, JJ.

DATE : 5TH SEPTEMBER, 2022.

P.C. :

1.

Rule.

2.

Ms Dhond waives service for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr.Dhokale waives service for respondent no.3. 3.

Rule made returnable forthwith.

2 5-WP-2272-2019.doc 4.

By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent nos.1 and 2 to decide the applications and representations of the petitioner, described in prayer clause (a) of the petition.

5.

Learned Counsel for Municipal Corporation has no instructions whether any of the applications described in prayer clause (a), is decided or not. Statement is accepted. 6.

The petition is disposed of with following directions: i) Respondent nos.1 and 2 shall decide those applications described in prayer clause (a), if not decided so far, within six weeks from today, after granting hearing to the petitioner and respondent no.3.

ii) Petitioner and respondent no.3 are directed to remain present before respondents.

iii) Respondent nos.1 and 2 shall give 72 hours advance notice to the petitioner and respondent no.3 for the date of hearing. iv) The petitioner shall cooperate with the competent authority at the time of hearing.

3 5-WP-2272-2019.doc v) Respondent nos.1 and 2 to communicate the order to the petitioner as well as to Respondent no.3 within one week from the date of passing of order.

vi) If the order is adverse against the petitioner or Respondent no.3, then such party would be at liberty to fle proceeding permissible in law.

7.

This Court has not expressed any views on the merits of the matter.

8.

All contentions of the parties are kept open. 9.

Rule is made absolute accordingly.

10.

No order as to costs.

11.

Parties to act on authenticated copy of this order. (KAMAL KHATA, J.) (R.D. DHANUKA, J.)