Disposed

Indian Ex-Services League Maharashtra and Ors. v. B.M.C. and Anr.

Bombay HC12 Aug 2004WP/2012/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two writ petitions holding them subjudice following a detailed order by the Supreme Court in related Civil Appeals, granting liberty to the petitioners to intervene in the Supreme Court proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Injunction granted by the Court in both writ petitions was vacated; petitions disposed of; liberty granted to petitioners to intervene in Civil Appeal Nos.4156 and 4157 of 2002 before the apex Court.

Indian Ex-Services League Maharashtra… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2004)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

O. O. C. J.

¶3

WRIT PETITION LD.NO.1874 OF 2004 WITH

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2012 OF 2000

¶5

W.P. Ld.No. 1874/2004 :

¶6

S. Dhanpal Mudaliar. ...Petitioner.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. ... Respondents.

¶9

.... Mr. Raju More i/b. V. S. Talkute for the Petitioner. Ms. Priti Purandare for Respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶10

CORAM : DALVEER BHANDARI,C.J. & DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.

¶11

August 12, 2004.

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

The Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.4156 and 4157 of

¶14

2002 (Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union & Anr. Vs. Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai & Ors.) passed a detailed order

¶15

dated 30^th July 2004 which reads as under:

¶16

“We were also informed that one other party had also obtained an order from some other Court in Mumbai. We, therefore, feel it necessary to clarify that this Court is framing a scheme for hawking. Thus only this Court will hereinafter deal with this aspect. No other Court shall either interpret orders of this Court or pass any orders

¶17

contrary to the orders of this Court. If any clarifications are required they must be obtained from this Court. Also if any party feels aggrieved by the effect of an order of this court, then the remedy of that party will be to approach this Court for a clarification or variation.”

¶18

In this order, the Supreme Court gave specific directions to the Jai Jawans Association.

¶19

Mr. A. Sharan, learned senior counsel who appeared for

¶20

Jai Jawans Association, proposed to the Supreme Court on instructions and undertaken, that they would now abide by the orders of the Supreme Court and would get the order of the High Court vacated within a period of four weeks.

¶21

In view of the order of the Supreme Court, the injunction

¶22

granted by this Court in both the writ petitions is vacated and both these writ petitions are disposed of. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to intervene in Civil Appeal Nos.4156 and 4157 of 2002 before the apex Court. No further orders are necessary.

¶23

The parties to act on an ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the office of this Court.

¶24

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶25

DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.

Indian Ex-Services League Maharashtra and Ors. v. B.M.C. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Ex-Services League Maharashtra and Ors. v. B.M.C. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rejendra J. Thacker Vs Chairman Mah. Film Stage and Cultural Development Corpn. and Ors.

Arun Y.Kulkarni @ Balasaheb Kulkarni Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shetkari Hitvardhak Sanstha Vs Mumbai Agricultural Produce Market Committee, and Ors.

Chittaranjan Hsg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Maharashtra Hsg. and Area Development Authority and Ors.

Mustaq Ahmed Subanali Vs Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Mumbai

Mukesh Advani Vs Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corpn.