This single-paragraph order in Writ Petition No. 1785 of 2005 holds the matter squarely covered by a prior High Court decision. The court ruled to make the rule absolute based on that precedent without detailed reasoning.
Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c).
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1785 OF 2005
Sajjad Hussein Abdul Rehman and others ...Petitioners
Versus
Director of Town Planning and others Respondents
Mr. C.G. Gavnekar for the petitioners.
Ms. A.Cardoz, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and 7.
Mr.S.M. Sabrad for respondent No.6.
CORAM : H.S. BEDI, C.J., & V.M. KANADE, J. DATE: DECEMBER 18, 2006 .
P.C.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We are of the opinion that the matter is squarely covered by the decision of this Court dated 12th August, 2004, in the case of Nathmal Sitaram Maniyar vs. The Commissioner, Malegaon Municipal Corporation and others, at Exhibit-C to the petition. Hence Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c).
CHIEF JUSTICE
V.M. KANADE, J.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order should be quashed in light of the decision in Nathmal Sitaram Maniyar.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nathmal Sitaram Maniyar vs. The Commissioner, Malegaon Municipal Corporation and others, dated 12th August, 2004Followed¶12
Sajjad Hussein Abdul Rehman and others
Director of Town Planning and others
H.S. BEDI
V.M. KANADE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
