Disposed

Pavitri Devi Hiralal Roopnarayan Shah v. Ibrahim Ismail Shaikh and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Oct 2005WP/2118/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ relief after illegal demolition of her shop by Municipal Corporation while a civil suit was pending. Court declined to examine demolition aspect but directed police to consider protection application within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Senior Inspector of Police to consider petitioner's protection application within two weeks and pass appropriate orders.

Pavitri Devi Hiralal Roopnarayan Shah… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2118 OF 2005

¶3

Smt. Pavitridevi H. Roopnarayan Sha. ] .. Petitioner
Versus

¶4

The State of Maharashtra.] .. Respondent

¶5

Mr.P.A. Kalambukadan for the petitioner.

¶6

Mr.Y.S. Shinde, A.P.P., for the respondent-State.

¶7

CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ.

¶8

DATED: 03RD OCTOBER, 2005

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

1.We have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner. He contended that the petitioner’s shop,
situate at opposite Bhaji Market, Santacruz West, has
been illegally demolished by the Mumbai Municipal
Corporation at the instance of respondent Nos.1 and 2.
So far as the alleged illegal demolition is concerned,
admittedly the petitioner has filed a Civil Suit and it
is pending in the City Civil Court at Mumbai. We have
no doubt that the City Civil Court will deal with that
suit and pass appropriate orders. We, therefore, cannot

¶11

: 2 :

¶12

go into that aspect of the matter.

¶13

2.So far as the prayer for protection is
concerned, we find that an application is already made
by the petitioner to the Senior Inspector of Police of
Juhu-Santacruz Police Station. It is dated 21st August,
2005. We direct the Senior Inspector of Police,
Juhu-Santacruz Police Station to consider the said
application at the earliest and, in any event, within a
period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this
order and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance
with law. Copy of the order be supplied to the
petitioner.

¶14

3.Petition disposed of.

¶15

[SMT. RANJANA P. DESAI, J.]

¶16

[ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.]

¶17

[srpasha@hc]

Pavitri Devi Hiralal Roopnarayan Shah v. Ibrahim Ismail Shaikh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pavitri Devi Hiralal Roopnarayan Shah v. Ibrahim Ismail Shaikh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagdish Ramsharan Agarwal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Meera Madan Singh Vs the Addl. Collector and Anr.

Sunil Ramesh Shitap Vs the State of Maharashtra Anr. Ors.