Sarat K. Behera v. Municipal Commissioner And Others

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to direct respondent nos. 1 to 5 to produce all records related to two impugned notices dated 12 January, 2021 and 19 January, 2021. The notice dated 12 January, 2021 was addressed to Haji Bilal Patrawala and others concerning a plot at Mahalaxmi Flats for No Objection Certificate (NOC) for addition and alteration. The petitioner contended that Haji Bilal Patrawala and others were not the landlords of the structures occupied by the petitioner’s clients. The notice dated 19 January, 2021 referred to the earlier notice and concerned the petitioner’s premises at Haji Moosa Patrawala Industrial Estate. This notice was issued by the Municipal Corporation under section 488 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (MMC Act), which empowers the Corporation to inspect properties constructed on municipal land. The petitioner did not dispute that the premises mentioned in the second notice belonged to them but denied applying for any regularization or alteration as referred in the first notice.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the Municipal Corporation and other respondents to produce all records related to the impugned notices dated 12 January, 2021 and 19 January, 2021.
2. Whether the notices issued under section 488 of the MMC Act to the petitioner’s premises are valid and justified.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments

• The petitioner challenged the notice dated 12 January, 2021 on the ground that it was addressed to Haji Bilal Patrawala and others, who are not landlords of the structures occupied by the petitioner’s clients.
• The petitioner denied having applied for any regularization, addition, or alteration as referred to in the notice dated 12 January, 2021.

Respondents’ Position

• The Municipal Corporation issued the notice dated 19 January, 2021 under section 488 of the MMC Act, authorizing inspection of the petitioner’s premises constructed on municipal land.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court noted that the notice dated 19 January, 2021 issued under section 488 of the MMC Act referred to the petitioner’s premises and that the Municipal Corporation is empowered to inspect structures constructed on municipal land under this provision. The Court found no reason to interfere with the petition, deeming it devoid of merit. The petitioner’s undertaking to allow inspection after 4:00 p.m. on 27 January, 2021 was accepted. Consequently, the Court directed the Municipal Corporation to depute an officer for inspection at 4:30 p.m. on the same date.

Holding and Implications

The Court dismissed the petition as lacking merit. The petitioner was directed to permit inspection of the premises by the Municipal Corporation’s officer on 27 January, 2021 at 4:30 p.m. There was no order as to costs. The decision directly affects the parties by allowing the Municipal Corporation to proceed with inspection under the statutory authority of section 488 of the MMC Act. The opinion does not establish any new precedent or broader legal implications beyond the facts of the case.