AMODKUMAR GANGWAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the earlier date, the parties were put to notice that these petitions will be taken up for final disposal. Accordingly, we issue Rule. The learned AGP waives service for the State of Maharashtra and the learned counsel appearing for the Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation waives service for the 2nd to 4th Respondents.

(2.) The challenge in these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the notices issued under Sub-section 1 of Section 212 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (for short "the said Act") and the orders passed by the designated officer under sub-section 2 of Section 212 of the said Act. 3] Various submissions have been made in support of these two petitions. The first submission is that the condition precedent for invoking Sub-section 1 of Section 212 is that a street line has to be prescribed in accordance with Section 210 of the said Act. The submission is that the street line is not prescribed in accordance with Section 210 and therefore, the power under Sub-section 1 of Section 212 and consequently under Sub-section 2 of Section 212 could not have been invoked. Though the claim of the Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation (for short "the said Corporation") is that a street line has been fixed in accordance with Section 210, various contentions have been canvased across the bar as to how the purported exercise of power under Section 210 is not legal. Another submission canvased is that though under Sub-section

(3.) of Section 212, the Municipal Commissioner is empowered to pass an order requiring the owner by a written notice to pull down the building or a part thereof which is within the regular line of street, the said power can be exercised only with the approval of the standing committee. It is submitted that in the present case when the impugned orders were passed by the designated officer under Sub- section 2 of Section 212, there was no approval of the Standing Committee. It is pointed out that though by a resolution dated 1 st October 2016, the Standing Committee of the said Corporation purported to delegate its powers under Sub-section 2 of Section 212 to the Commissioner, the Additional Commissioner, Zonal Deputy Commissioner etc., the Standing Committee has no such statutory power habeeb to delegate. It is submitted that even assuming that there is such a delegation made subsequent to the impugned order passed under Section 2 of Section 212, the earlier orders passed under Sub-section 2 of Section 212 cannot ratified by a subsequent resolution. It is further submitted that even assuming that the designated officer exercised the delegated powers, the impugned order is illegal on the ground that the Standing Committee had no authority to delegate its power under sub- section 2 of Section 212 to an officer of the Municipal Corporation.