ANITA ASHOK MAPUSKAR Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER OF MUMBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Gharte, learned Advocate for Appellants / Applicants and Mr. Vajale, learned Advocate for Respondents - BMC.

(2.) This is a group of six cases namely Appeals From Order which are challenging separate identical orders all dtd. 19/5/2025 passed by the Trial Court. They are ad-interim orders passed in Notice of Motion filed by Plaintiffs / Appellants before the Trial Court on consideration of the case made out by Plaintiffs in the Suit plaint.

(3.) Plaintiffs have challenged legality of statutory notices issued under Sec. 53 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short 'MRTP Act') by the Corporation qua their structures. Identical notices have been issued which are all dtd. 15/3/2025, copies of which are appended at Exhibit 'U' to the Appeal From Order. The impugned notices are issued under Sec. 53(1) read with Sec. 52(1)(h) and (d) of the MRTP Act. The notices have been replied to by all Plaintiffs on 27/3/2025 separately. Pursuant to this Designated Officer of the Corporation has passed a speaking order dtd. 29/4/2025. The speaking order is appended at Exhibit 'W' - page No.171 to the Appeal From Order in Appeal From Order No.333 of 2025. Prima facie, perusal of the speaking order reveals that without hearing the Plaintiffs, the speaking order has been passed by the Designated Officer, Ward 'T' of the Corporation. It is also seen that the reply given by Plaintiffs to the impugned notice has not even been considered by the Designated Officer since the speaking order is prima facie sans without reasons.