9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1757X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e relief of quashing and setting aside the impugned order and a direction to the Metropolitan Magistrate to condone the delay in filing the complaint (if any) and issue process. 3. The background in which the present Writ Petition is filed is as follows:- (a) The Municipal Corporation had issued a notice under Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (the said Act) to the present respondent No. 1 and others calling upon them to carry out structural repairs of the said building within one month from the date of issue of notice i.e. prior to 1.3.2011. Upon noticing that earlier directions were not followed, the second notice was issued on 22.2.2011. (b) The officer of the Municipal Corporation had visited the premises an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 011, this Court (Coram: M.L. Tahaliyani, J.) has dismissed the said application holding that: "there is no provision for condonation of delay in filing the complaint under the M.M.C. Act." "It is to be noted that u/s. 468 of Cr.P.C. there is bar on taking cognizance of offence by the Court after lapse of the period of limitation mentioned in the said section. Section 473 gives discretion to the Court to condone the delay whereas u/s. 514 of MMC Act, the limitation is provided for filing of complaint in the Court of Magistrate." "If the complaint is not made before the concerned Magistrate, within the time prescribed by Section 514 the same is required to be returned to the complainant. It therefore follows that in such a case, the Magis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ociety has filed a report informing that the repair work has commenced but the Corporation has stayed the said repair work. He has challenged the stoppage of work by the Corporation by filing a suit for injunction before the Dindoshi Court. The matter was adjourned from time to time. 9. On 11.4.2014, the original complainant who had moved an application for issuing notice under Section 354 had sought liberty to file Intervention Application which was registered as Criminal Application No. 167 of 2014. The complainant was allowed to intervene. The matter has been pending since then. 10. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, this Court had made a query and had called upon the learned counsel for the petitioner to substantiate the main ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ic precedent. It is the liberty granted to the petitioner to probe the possibility of seeking the relief by an alternative remedy. The said liberty does not give right to a litigant fresh/anew to agitate the same issue/order which has attained finality. The liberty may confer a right to the petitioner to file a petition, but it does not confer jurisdiction upon the Court to probe into the correctness or the validity of the order under challenge. Review of a judgment cannot be had on this liberty. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that only because liberty is granted does not mean that the subsequent proceeding is maintainable in the eyes of law or that it calls upon the successor Court to hold subsequent petition maintainable or pass an o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
