Bombay High Court
SNEHA S. TAWADEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SHIVKUMAR DIGE
Holding
The application is dismissed as infructuous because the notice on which the order was based has been withdrawn.
Summary
Sneha S. Tawade filed a criminal application challenging an order passed by a Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 471 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The challenge arose from a notice issued to her under Section 353A of the same Act. Respondent No.2, the Bombay Municipal Corporation, informed the Court that it intended to withdraw the impugned notice and would file a fresh application before the Magistrate. The Court considered that, with the withdrawal of the notice, there was nothing left to contest in the pending application. Accordingly, the Court disposed of the application as infructuous and ordered that all pending applications be dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether an application challenging an order under Section 471 of the MMC Act becomes infructuous when the underlying notice under Section 353A is withdrawn.
Legislation cited
- Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 — s. 353A, 471
Subjects
- Municipal Corporation Act
- Section 353A
- Section 471
- withdrawal of notice
- infructuous application
- Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
- BMC
- High Court of Bombay
Judgment
1-APL-332-2019 (CR).doc
N.S.Kamble
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 332 OF 2019
Sneha S. Tawade ...Applicant
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents
____________________________________________________________
Mr.Mahesh Kukreja a/w Mr.Salman Haidar Khan and Mr.Shivam Singh, for
Digitally signed
by NILAM the Applicant.
NILAM SANTOSH
SANTOSH KAMBLE Mr.M.G. Patil, APP for Respondent-State.
KAMBLE Date:
2026.05.05
14:18:08 +0530 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
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 Applicant under Section 353A of the Mumbai
Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (‘MMC Act’ for short) and Application
Page 1 of 2
1-APL-332-2019 (CR).doc
N.S.Kamble
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 Application be
disposed of accordingly since it has 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 this Application 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
this Application and I pass following order.
ORDER
(i) The Application is disposed of as infructuous.
(ii) All pending Applications are disposed of.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 2 of 2
Checking your session…