Dismissed

Smt. Minakshi Subhash Koli and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Oct 2006WP/5101/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by petitioners apprehending demolition of their structures. The court held that due process under the Bombay Highways Act applies and refusal to entertain the petition at this stage with a short extension.

What did the court decide?

The petition was rejected and protection continued for four weeks to submit representation to Competent Authority.

Smt. Minakshi Subhash Koli and Ors. Vs the State of… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

:1:

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 WRIT PETITION NO. 5101 OF 2001

¶4

 Smt. Minakshi Subhash Koli and ors. ..Petitioners

¶5

Vs.

¶6

 The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents

¶7

 Mr. R.P. Sabban for petitioners.
 Mr. C.R. Sonawane, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2.
 Ms. R.V. Tawade for respondent no.4.

¶8

CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & NARESH H. PATIL,JJ.

¶9

 Date : October 05, 2006.

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶12

 It is clear that the petitioners have filed this
 petition under the apprehension that their structures
 were likely to be demolished. Undoubtedly, demolition

¶13

 of encroached or unauthorised structures can be
 undertaken by following the due process of law and if
 the petitioners are issued notice for demolition, they
 will have to file a reply under the Bombay Highways
 Act, 1955. Under the said Act there is also a remedy
 of appeal to the Collector in case such an order is

¶14

 finally passed against the petitioners.

¶15

:2:

¶16

 2. We, therefore, do not see any reason to

¶17

 entertain this petition at this stage.

¶18

 3. The petition is, therefore, rejected and in
 case the petitioners submit a representation to the
 Competent Authority within a period of four weeks from
 today, the protection granted by this court will
 continue to operate for the said period of four weeks.

¶19

(Naresh H. Patil, J.)(B.H. Marlapalle,J.)

Smt. Minakshi Subhash Koli and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Minakshi Subhash Koli and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Sitaram Narayan Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and 10 Ors.

Prakash Anant Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Manohar Budhaji Patil Vs D. Shivanandan and Ors.

Shri.Anil Shankar Matthe Vs State of Maharashtra Th.Its Secretary and Ors.

Smt. Minakshi Subhash Koli and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Kheraj Jayaram Bhanushali Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.