SATRAM DAS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-Satram Das Gehri Mal Jewellers Pvt. Limited, Udaipur has filed this petition through Manohar Lal Mehta, who is one of the Directors of the petitioner company and challenged the impugned notice/order dated 29. 4. 98 (Annex. 7) whereby the Municipal Commissioner, Udaipur-respondent no. 2 ordered the petitioner to remove the construction on the site within 48 hours from the receipt of the notice failing which the same will be removed at the costs and consequences of the petitioner.

(2.) AS per the averments made in para 3 of the petition, it is stated that the petitioner applied for permission to construct a new building by demolishing the existing building of on a plot of land situated near Chetak Cinema, Udaipur by an application dated 29. 1. 98 and deposited the requisite fees prescribed by the Municipal Council, Udaipur and obtained a receipt of Rs. 1,050/-which is produced at Annex. 2. However, the petitioner has not annexed the application dated 29. 1. 98 along with the petition.

(3.) IT is alleged in the petition by the petitioner that instead of acting on the opinion of the Senior Town Planner in granting necessary permission to the petitioner as laid down under Sec. 170 of the Act, no permission was granted even after expiry of thirty days after the application, therefore, the petitioner was obliged to submit a reminder/notice dated 26. 3. 98 (Annex. 5 ). The same was received on that very day i. e. 26. 3. 98 by the Municipal Commissioner. As provided under Sec. 170 (8) of the Act, if no decision is taken within fifteen days, then it means that the deemed permission is granted. The last date was 10. 4. 98 for taking such decision by the Municipal Council but as no decision was taken or communicated to the petitioner by that time, the petitioner started with the construction. However, within 19 days thereof i. e on 29. 4. 98, the petitioner has been served with the impugned notice from the Commissioner, Municipal Council,udaipur (Annex. 7) calling upon the petitioner to remove the construction from the site failing which the construction shall be removed at the costs and consequences of the petitioner. This has been challenged by the petitioner by way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.