Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

A division bench of the Bombay High Court, comprising Justice SB Shukre and Justice Rajesh Patil, reserved its judgment on Monday in the plea filed by UBT MLA Ravindra Waikar. The plea challenges the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai's (MCGM) decision to deny permission for the development of his 5-Star Hotel in Jogeshwari.

Additionally, the high court division bench rejected an intervention application from BJP Leader Kirit Somaiya. Somaiya had lodged a complaint against UBT leader Ravindra Waikar, alleging that Waikar had withheld crucial information while seeking permission.

The counsel representing Somaiya contended that there was no need for the bench to admit the intervention application (IA), and he also expressed no intention to file a reply. Instead, he suggested that the bench should proceed with oral arguments.

However, the bench declined the IA, noting that the Somaiya need not interfere with the petition.

Senior Advocate Aspi Chinoy, representing Waikar, argued that the initial complaint had been lodged by Somaiya. Nevertheless, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) later concluded that the complaint lacked substance. Subsequently, six months later, Waikar received a communication from the MCGM requesting clarification. It was based on this clarification that the development permission was ultimately denied.

Senior Advocate Milind Sathe, representing the BMC, argued that Waikar did not possess the authorization to construct beyond the plinth level. He pointed out that the prior permission granted was limited to the plinth level exclusively. Additionally, he conveyed that the BMC would not proceed with processing his application.

Waikar had filed a plea before the high court on the grounds that the corporation had cancelled the development permission without any show cause notice and in violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore he argued that the same was arbitrary, unjust and malafide. 

Notably, in a previous hearing, the high court had observed that an effort seemed to be underway to politicize the matter. The plea asserted that due to Waikar's affiliation with a rival political party, he did not anticipate impartiality from his political adversaries.

His plea stated that Waikar was not put to notice of the proposed action by the BMC. 

"That the impugned order states that the development permission is cancelled with the approval of the Municipal Commissioner while the Petitioner was never put to notice about such action proposed and is still not given copy or reasons based on which such an order is issued," the plea stated.

Case title: Ravindra D Waikar vs MCGM