Bombay High Court
DINESH P. MARUversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SHIVKUMAR DIGE
Holding
The Court held that the applications are infructuous and disposed of them.
Summary
The petitioners (Dyaneshwar S. Kelaji, Dinesh P. Maru and Vaishali A. Dabholkar) filed applications challenging an order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 471 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The order arose from a notice issued to them under Section 353A of the same Act. The corporation later decided to withdraw the impugned notice. Both parties submitted that, with the withdrawal, there was nothing left to contest. The Court held that the applications became infructuous and ordered their disposal. Consequently, all pending applications were also dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the order under Section 471 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act remains enforceable after the withdrawal of the notice issued under Section 353A.
- Whether the applications become infructuous and should be dismissed.
Legislation cited
- Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 — s. 353A, 471
Subjects
- withdrawal of notice
- infructuous application
- Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act
- Section 353A
- Section 471
- municipal corporation
- criminal appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
4-APL-1695-2019 (CR).doc
N.S.Kamble
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1695 OF 2019
Dyaneshwar S. Kelaji ...Applicant
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ...Respondents
WITH
Digitally signed
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1696 OF 2019
by NILAM
NILAM SANTOSH
SANTOSH KAMBLE
KAMBLE Date:
2026.05.05
Dinesh P. Maru ...Applicant
14:18:02 +0530
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ...Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1697 OF 2019
Vaishali A. Dabholkar …Applicant
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ...Respondents
____________________________________________________________
Mr.Mahesh Kukreja a/w Mr.Salman Haidar Khan and Mr.Shivam Singh, for
the Applicant.
Mr.M.G. Patil, APP for Respondent-State.
Mr.Anoop Patil a/w Mr.P.P. Chavhan i/b Ms.Komal Punjabi, for the
Respondent-BMC.
Mr.Jagannath Gavhane, AE-DP-R-II.
Mr.Rahul Ishi, SE-BD-R-5.
____________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 28th APRIL 2026
P.C. :
. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant, learned APP and
Page 1 of 3
4-APL-1695-2019 (CR).doc
N.S.Kamble
learned counsel for Respondent No.2-Corporation.
2. The learned counsel for Respondent No.2-Corporation tendered
copy of the instructions. It is taken on record.
3. The learned counsel for Respondent No.2-Corporation further
submitted that the Respondent No.2 has decided to withdraw impugned
notice issued to the Applicants under Section 353A of the Mumbai
Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (‘MMC Act’ for short) and Applications
will be filed in that regard before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and
requested to pass appropriate order.
4. The learned counsel for the Applicant, on submission of the
learned counsel for Respondent No.2 submits that, the Applications be
disposed of accordingly since it have become infructuous as the Corporation
is going to withdraw the notice on which impugned order has been passed.
5. Considering the submissions of both learned counsel, the
challenge in these Applications is to the issue process order passed by the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 471 of the MMC Act. As
Respondent No.2 is going to withdraw the said notices, nothing survives in
these Applications and I pass following order.
ORDER
(i) The Applications are disposed of as infructuous.
Page 2 of 3
4-APL-1695-2019 (CR).doc
N.S.Kamble
(ii) All pending Applications are disposed of.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…