Allowed

Nepean Sea Road Citizens Forum and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary Urban Development Department and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Jul 2007NMW/155/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a notice of motion arising out of a writ petition. The court allowed the applicant to withdraw the motion with liberty to take legal steps, noting recent orders prohibit any construction on the site.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to applicant to withdraw notice of motion with liberty to take permissible steps.

Nepean Sea Road Citizens Forum and Ors. Vs the… — Environment and Pollution | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

MSS

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVILJURISDICTION

¶5

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 155 OF 2007

¶6

IN

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 3151 OF 2004

¶8

 NEPEAN SEA ROAD CITIZEN’S
 FORUM & ANR. .. PETITIONERS
 Vs.

¶9

 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. .. RESPONDENTS

¶10

 Mr. G. S. Patel a/w Mr. Kalpesh Joshi i/b M/s.
 M. Ranchoddas & Co. for petitioners

¶11

 Mr. Y.R. Mishra for UOI

¶12

 Mrs. P.A. Purandare for BMC

¶13

 Mr. C.J. Sawant a/w Mr. V. C. Ghosalkar for
 applicant in N/M

¶14

 Mr. R.V. Govilkar for Respondent No. 6

¶15

 Mr. N.P. Pandit, AGP for Respondent No. 1

¶16

CORAM:SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. &
SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.

¶17

DATE:JULY 12, 2007.

¶18

P.C.

¶19

 . The learned counsel appearing for the applicant
 Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd.
 states that in view of the order dated 9th July,
 2007 passed by the Maharashtra Coastal Zone
 Management Ltd. and order dated 11th July, 2007

¶20

¶21

 passed by the Competent Authority under Section 5
 of the Environmental Protection Act, 1986, he does
 not press this motion with liberty to take such
 steps against the impugned orders as may be
 permissible to him in law.

¶22

 2. The learned counsel appearing for the
 petitioner submits that in view of two orders
 passed now, the applicant cannot be permitted to
 carry out any construction and as such nothing
 survives in this petition and, therefore, prayer in
 the writ petition should be made absolute.

¶23

 3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
 the parties, we are prepared to grant leave to the
 applicant to withdraw this motion with liberty to
 take such steps as are permissible to him in
 accordance with law.

¶24

 4. We further make it clear that in view of these

¶25

 two orders, the applicant cannot raise any
 construction on the site in question and in the
 event the applicant takes any appropriate steps
 within one month from today and the court of
 competent jurisdiction passes any order to the
 contrary, no construction shall be raised on the

¶26

¶27

 site in question.

¶28

 5. In the event no steps are taken within one

¶29

 month from today these orders would operate on
 their own and, we are certain that the authorities
 concerned would take appropriate steps in

¶30

 accordance with law.

¶31

 6. The learned counsel for the applicant submits
 that he would give notice to the petitioners, if
 any such steps taken in future.

¶32

 7. The notice of motion and the writ petition both
 are accordingly disposed of.

¶33

 8. It is made clear that the disposal of this writ
 petition would not in any way prejudice the
 applicant, who is at liberty to challenge the

¶34

 orders.

¶35

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶36

SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.

Nepean Sea Road Citizens Forum and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary Urban Development Department and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nepean Sea Road Citizens Forum and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary Urban Development Department 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

Santosh Pundlik Hargode Vs the Administrator, Cidco and Ors.

R.C.Kotiankar and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mumbai Pune Taxi Tourist Service Centre Vs the Pune Taximens Consumer Co-Operative Society Ltd. and Ors.

Small Scale Enterpreneurs Association and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Babasaheb Ramrao Patil and Ors. Vs the State Election Commission, Mumbai and Ors.

Sanjay Motisingh Pardeshi and Ors. Vs Yeola Municipal Council and Ors.