Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: N/m No. 865/2020 in Suit No. 246/2020. 1 Order.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY.
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 865 OF 2020
(CNR NO. MHCC01-002327-2020)
IN
LONG CAUSE SUIT NO. 246 OF 2020
(CNR NO. MHCC01-000790-2020)
Suyog Telematics Limited ...Plaintiff
Versus
The Asst. Municipal Commissioner and others ...Defendants
CORAM : SHRI G.G.BHANSALI.
(C.R.NO.11).
DATE : 26th FEBRUARY, 2020.
Mr. Ansari, Advocate for Plaintiff.
Mrs. Chavan, Advocate for Defendants / MCGM.
ORDER
This is a motion taken out by plaintiff to challenge notice
dated 13/01/2020, issued under Section 351 of MMC Act.
2. Perused reply submitted by plaintiff dated 16/01/2020. It
is to note that landlord Mr. Sunil Abrol, informed the plaintiff Suyog
Tele. Ltd. in respect of impugned notice.
3. Ld. Advocate Ansari for plaintiff submits that mobile tower
is working since June, 2018 at the address given in Para No.1 situated
-- 1 of 4 --
N/m No. 865/2020 in Suit No. 246/2020. 2 Order.
at L.B.S.Road, Vikhroli. It is added that application for permission was
filed by plaintiff on 16/01/2020, he is ready to deposit charges and
application may be treated for regularization.
4. It is strongly resisted by MCGM. It is requested to peruse
documents alongwith supportive affidavit of Mr. Nikhil Salve, Junior
Engineer of B & F Department, ‘S’ Ward, vide Exh.2. It is requested to
peruse reply given by MCGM on 15/02/2020, wherein, it is specifically
intimated that application submitted by plaintiff is without any
enclosure documents as mentioned in reply. It is also informed that
what is the proper authority, whether it is incumbent to apply for
permission / regularization for erection of mobile tower. It is prayed to
reject the application.
REASONS
5. In view of aforesaid discussion, it is crystal clear that
neither landlord Mr. Sunil Abrol nor plaintiff has taken care to seek for
permission for installation of mobile tower. There was no application
submitted by plaintiff or landlord for regularization till notice issued by
the MCGM dated 13/01/2020.
6. It appears that upon issuance of notice, landlord and
plaintiff find it appropriate to move for permission and regularization.
It clearly indicate installation of tower in itself is unauthorized
structure.
7. Plaintiff is a company who erects various mobile towers.
Obviously, it is within knowledge of the plaintiff that there is a specific
department to grant the permission and its procedure is to submit the
-- 2 of 4 --
N/m No. 865/2020 in Suit No. 246/2020. 3 Order.
application online. In aforesaid circumstances, there is no prima facie
case in favour of plaintiff.
8. Erection of tower in itself is unauthorized structure,
therefore balance of convenience does not lie in favour of plaintiff. It
will cause no irreparable loss to the plaintiff as tower in itself is
unauthorized structure. There is no speaking order proceeded by the
designated officer. MCGM to proceed for the speaking order at the
earliest. Hence the order :
- ORDER -
1. Notice of Motion No. 865/2020 stands dismissed.
2. In view of reply submitted by plaintiff, designated officer to
proceed for speaking order .
3. N/m No. 865/2020 disposed off accordingly.
(G.G.BHANSALI)
Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Date : 26/02/2020. Mumbai.
1. Dictated on : 26/02/2020.
2. Transcribed on : 27/02/2020.
3. Signed on : 28/02/2020.
4. Delivered to Certified :
Copy Section on
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
-- 3 of 4 --
N/m No. 865/2020 in Suit No. 246/2020. 4 Order.
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
28/02/2020. 11.06 a.m. Miss M.A.Kulkarni
Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.) HHJ Shri G.G.Bhansali.
(Court Room No.11).
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order 26/02/2020.
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 28/02/2020.
Judgment/Order uploaded on 28/02/2020.
-- 4 of 4 --