JAGDISH P. DESHPANDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE submissions of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 4 and the learned AGP for the respondent No. 1 were heard on Friday, 26th June 2015.

(2.) THE petitioner is a registered Architect within the meaning of the provisions of the Architects Act, 1972 (for short "the said Act"). The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 15th April 2011 passed by the Municipal Commissioner of the respondent No. 2 - the Municipal Corporation of city of Pune. The operative part of the said order reads thus:

(3.) THE learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation invited our attention to the detailed findings of fact recorded by the Municipal Commissioner after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. He pointed out that the finding of the Commissioner is that the petitioner has indulged in fraudulent acts and has played with innocent flat purchasers. He urged that considering the findings recorded by the Commissioner after holding an enquiry and considering the conduct of the petitioner reflected from the said findings this is not a fit case to interfere in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 supported the legal submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.