SHREE MULUND STALL HOLDERS AND OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION (REGISTERED) Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is settled law that if a project undertaken by the local body is beneficial for larger public, inconvenience to small number of people is to be accepted. Thus, proposition of law is that individual interest or for that matter smaller public interest must yield to the larger public interest. Therefore, inconvenience to some, should be bypassed for a larger interest or cause of the society.

(2.) Thus, the learned Court, directed the members of Association to submit all relevant document to Municipal Authority for its ' consideration. Pursuant to that, Corporation held some members of Appellant-Association eligible for raising stall at alternate places. Let me note, that the members of Association have their stalls on S.V.P. Road, Mulund (West). There is yet another association of stall owners, namely 'J.S.D. Stall Owner Association ', whose members were occupying the stalls along a J.S. Road, near Railway Station, Mulund (West). Members of the said association were also issued notices by the Corporation. Whereafter, J.S.D. Stall Owner Association, had filed the Writ Petition Lodging No. 671/2020, questioning legality of notices and alleging that Corporation was only targeting its ' members but guarding the stalls of Appellant-Association, although both, were similarly situated. It is noteable that, Counsel appearing for the Corporation in the said Writ Petition, informed the Division Bench that Corporation shall demolish all stalls on N.S. Road and S.V.P. Road simultaneously. As to alternate stalls offered to the members of J.S.D. Stall Owners Association is concerned, Association had agreed to accept the stalls at alternate place. The Paragraph No. 3, 4 and 5 of the order dtd. 28/2/2020 in WP. Lodging No. 671/2020 reads as under;

(3.) Here members of the Appellant-Association have been held eligible for raising their stalls at alternate locations. Vide notices dtd. 29/2/2020 purportedly issued under Sec. 314 of the MMC Act, Corporation offered alternate place at six different locations to the Appellants ' members and were directed to opt their choice and shift stalls within 24 hours. Vide notice, they were requested to contact the Assistant Engineer, Maintenance, in case of any difficulty. Ideally, they ought have accepted the offer. However noticeswere challenged in the L.C. Suit Stamp No. 2927/2020 in Bombay City Civil Court, Bombay. Contending, that, since they have been permitted to install stalls by the Standing Committee, they were not unauthorized occupants and therefore Corporation cannot evit or ask them to shift. Pending suit, Plaintiff-Association sought stay to execution and implementation of notice dtd. 29/2/2020, which the trail Court declined vide order dtd. 5/3/2020. That order is under challenged in these appeals, under Order-43, Rule-1(r) read with Sec. 104 of the Civil Procedure Code.