Actor Sonu Sood Moves Supreme Court Against Bombay High Court's Order Denying Relief Against BMC's Notice On 'Illegal Constructions"

The plea further alleges that the Court denied the grant of temporary injunction without considering the fact that the petitioners have already acquired approval of the Municipal Commissioner for their proposal moved under the Municipal Corporation Act, and are awaiting NOC of the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority, with regard to the suit building.

According to the petitioners, the High Court not only took extraneous factors into consideration, but used the same as a foundation to render observations on the petitioner's conduct.

It has been contended in the plea that the High Court has committed a manifest error by proceeding to comment on the merits of the case which was an appeal against an interim order in a case pending adjudication, and has therefore prevented the free, fair and uninfluenced adjudication of the suit.

The petitioners have expressed serious apprehensions that the said observations of the High Court would cause in the trial of their pending suit.

According to the petitioners, the Court has influenced and prevented the fair and unbiased adjudication of the their Suit , by holding that the Civil Suit was barred on account of bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 149 of the Maharashtra Regulation and Town Planning Act, 1966 despite the contrary view taken time and again by both the Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court.

In the present case the Petitioners despite having acquired part approval for proposal dated 19.06.2018 from the Municipal Commissioner on 07.02.2020 and pending only the NOC from MCZMA, a notice was issued against them notice u/s 53(1) MRTP Act thereby leading the Petitioner to rightly apprehend that the alleged offending structure of the suit building will be demolished.

The petitioners have contended that the High Court has found fault with the Petitioners in not filing an application under Section 44 of the MRTP Act, while failing to appreciate that such application can be filed as a matter of right at any point in time after issuance of the notice under 53(1) of the MRTP Act.

According to the petitioners, the High Court also lost sight of the fact that the Notice u/s 53(1) of the MRTP Act dated 24.10.2020 was given impetus by virtue of a motivated complaint which was only filed because the complainant is determined to cause harm to the property of the Petitioners as his illegal demands were not met. The notice issued by the respondents under Section 53 (1) of the MRTP Act, forming the basis of the present lis is in itself null and void, non est, vague, lacking material particulars inasmuch as it does not indicate the alleged unauthorized development undertaken and tritely put, is wholly incapable of being acted upon and by no stretch of imagination can the same be said to be sound in law.

The special leave petition has been filed by AOR D.Kumanan and drawn by Prashant Sivarajan & Ujjawal Anand Sharma ,Partners at Lawmen & White.