M/S. Komal Developers v. Municipal Commissioner For Greater Mumbai And 2 ORS.

oswp2389 ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2389 OF 2016 Komal Developers

...Petitioner

vs.

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & others

...Respondents

Ms Yasmin Tavaria for the Petitioner Ms Geeta Joglekar for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM : A.S.OKA, & SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI,JJ.

DATE : JUNE 6, 2017 P.C.:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The only substantive prayer in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is prayer clause (a).

Approval to the amended plans submitted by the Architect of the petitioner was granted by order dated 6th April 2016 (Exhibit-D to the petition). The learned counsel for the petitioner states that no such condition which is reproduced in prayer clause (a) has been incorporated in the order dated 6th April 2016. According to him, no such condition has been incorporated in the sanctioned plan issued along with the order dated 6th April 2016.

As the submission of the petitioner is that while issuing the I.O.D and C.C., the respondent

oswp2389 No.1 has not imposed any such condition, there was no reason for the petitioner to challenge the same. Therefore, this petition is mis-conceived, and accordingly, we decline to entertain the same. If in future, any such condition is really imposed, it will be open for the petitioner to file a fresh petition for challenging the same.

(VIBHA KANKANWADI,J.) (A.S.OKA,J.)