The Bombay High Court's Aurangabad bench on Tuesday conducted a hearing on a petition filed by AIMIM corporator Mateen Patel, who challenged the demolition notices issued by the Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Municipal Corporation (CSMC). The court has scheduled the next hearing for May 18. Meanwhile, the civic body has issued a fresh 24-hour ultimatum to Patel, demanding the removal of allegedly illegal structures at his residence and office.
Background of the Case
According to civic officials, the CSMC issued notices to Patel on May 9, directing him to remove the purported unauthorised constructions within three days or face demolition action. Patel submitted his reply to the notices on Monday. After examining his response, the civic body stated that it was not satisfied with the explanation and issued a fresh communication granting him 24 hours to remove the structures on Tuesday. The corporation warned that demolition action would follow if he failed to comply.
Petitioner's Arguments
Patel, who is accused of sheltering a TCS woman employee wanted by the Nashik city police in a criminal case, subsequently approached the High Court challenging the notices. Appearing for Patel and Hanif Khan, the owner of the house where the TCS employee allegedly stayed, advocates Abhaysinh Bhosle and Krushna Rodge argued that the notices were issued on a Saturday and Sunday, which were public holidays. They sought protection from coercive action against Patel's residence and office, as well as Khan's property.
Respondent's Counterarguments
Opposing the plea, assistant government pleader Sambhaji Tope, representing the municipal corporation, contended that no relief should be granted as the structures were illegal under sections 251 and 260 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act. He submitted that Patel had failed to produce any building permission documents. "At the most, we can give them seven days, the period for which will start from the date of issuance of notice, that is May 9," Tope submitted before the court. Citing Supreme Court rulings on illegal constructions, Tope strongly opposed any protection from demolition action, arguing that granting relief to an elected corporator despite alleged illegal construction would send a wrong message to society.
Court's Observations
After the hearing, advocates Bhosle and Rodge said the court took note of their contention that the May 9 notices were contrary to the provisions of municipal law. They said the court, however, refrained from passing any interim written order. According to the defence counsel, the court orally told the advocate for the municipal corporation not to take coercive action till the next hearing on May 18. Tope, however, maintained that no stay had been granted. "Patel sought a stay, but he does not possess any building permission. The court has not granted any stay. Since no order restraining the corporation has been passed, the civic body is free to proceed," he said.
