HC pulls up BMC for inaction against unauthorised structure
- Zero-tolerance towards communal violence, must act: Centre to states
- Varanasi: Violence breaks out during protest march, vehicles set ablaze
- Germany our natural partner, says Modi after meeting Merkel; 18 MoUs inked to boost trade
- Why the BJP finds itself in a spot before Gujarat local body polls
- Supreme Court suspends beef ban in Jammu & Kashmir for two months
Balu relied upon a communication issued under the signature of Assistant Commissioner G/South Ward of BMC dated January 12. He prayed that inspite of unauthorised structure and illegality noticed by the corporation, no action had been taken in respect of structures occupied by Katkam.
In the backdrop of this grievance, the court had on October 31 asked the BMC to take corrective measures within a period of one week.
When the matter came up recently before the court, the corporation submitted that its officer had filed a complaint in respect of the unauthorised structure against Katkam and after recording of panchnama and consequent to registration of FIR, the officer would proceed in the matter.
The court called upon the counsel for the corporation to point out express provisions under the Act or in the Rules which require this procedure to be followed and more so refrain the officer of the corporation from taking action against unauthorised structure independently.
The counsel for the corporation was not been able to point out any such provision in law, except referring to Section 53(6) of the MRTP Act.
The court, however, noted that this was not the procedure envisaged under that provision. There are two independent remedies/actions provided and could be invoked by the corporation. One is under section 53(6) of the MRTP Act and other is under Section 351 of the Corporation Act.
"As this position is accepted by the counsel for the corporation, we fail to understand as to what prevented the corporation to initiate action against the unauthorised structure without waiting for the approval from the police authority," the judges asked.
The second petition was filed by Katkam, as a counter application to the first petition. His argument was that the petitioner in the first petition has already resorted to a civil suit against him. Inspite of it, remedy of writ petition has been invoked by the petitioner, he said.