Dismissed

Inayat Ibrahim Mukadam v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Sept 2007PIL/122/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay Public Interest Litigation alleging the Chiplun Municipal Council was demolishing a vegetable market without alternative arrangements for vendors. The court observed the demolition was pursuant to a consent decree and found no public interest involved, dismissing the PIL.

What did the court decide?

The Public Interest Litigation was dismissed with compensatory costs of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid by the Petitioner within two weeks.

Inayat Ibrahim Mukadam Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

	IN THE HIGH APP	COURT OF JUDICATURE A ELLATE	T BO	MBAY SIDE
	PUBLIC INTEREST	LITIGATION NO. 122	OF	2007
INAYA	T IBRAHIM MUKADAM VS.	...PETITIONER
THE	STATE	OF	MAHAR	SHTRA
AND O	RS.	...RESPONDENTS.
		ALONGWITH
	CIVIL APPLI	CATION NO. 59	OF	2007
		IN
	P.I.L.	NO. 122 OF		2007
INA	YAT IBRAHIM MUKADAM VS.	...PETITIONER.
THE	STATE	OF MAHARASHTRA		&
ORS.	AND	...RESPONDENTS.
RAJEN	DRA MORE AND ORS.	...APPLICANTS.
MR.	V.T.TULPULE I/B.	HARSHAD BHADBHADE	FOR	THE
PETIT	IONER.
MR.	R.D. RANE	FOR RESPONDENT		NO.1.
MR.	S.M.RAILKAR FOR	RESPONDENT NO. 2	&	3.
MR.	OMKAR WARANGE	FOR APPLICANT IN C.A.59	OF	2007.
	CORAM	..... : J.N.Patel and A.A	.Sayed,	JJ.
	DATE	: September .....	5,	2007.

¶3

¶4

P.C.

¶5

Heard.

¶6

The Petitioner has filed this Public Interest

¶7

Litigation	seeking	a	Writ	of	Mandamus	restraining	the
Respondent-		Chiplun		Munici	pal	Council	from
demolishing	the		Bhaji	Mandai	situated	at	Chiplun,

¶8

District Ratnagiri, without making proper alternative

¶9

arrangement for the vegetable vendors.

¶10

3.	The le	arned	Counsel	appearin	g for Respo	ndent-
Chiplun	Municipal		Cor	poration	has	placed on		record
the	decision	of	the	Civil	Judge,	Junior		Division,
Chiplun,	rendered	i	n Re	gular	Civil	Suit No.	39	of
2007,	in whic	h	the		Vegetable	Vendors	and	the
Municipal	Council,	Chi	plun	had	obtai	ned the	decree	by

¶11

consent and the said market is being removed by

¶12

demolishing the structures, in terms of the decree.

¶13

We do not find any public interest is

¶14

involved in the matter as the Respondent- Municipal

¶15

Council is only executing the decree to which the Vegetable Vendors have consented.

¶16

It rather appears that the Petitioner has

¶17

¶18

filed		this	Public Interest Litigation	to	espouse	the
cause		for th	e Vegetable Vendors, who	have	ot	herwise
lost	in	the	Civil Suit. We, therefo	re, dis	miss	the
Public	I	nterest	Litigation with compensa	tory	costs	of
Rs.	25	,000/-.	Costs to be paid in	this	Court	within
two	weeks	from	the date of this Order.	On	failure	of
the	Peti	tioner	to pay the costs as	dir	ected,	the
Collector		shall	recover the same	as	fine	by
restorting		to	the provisions of the	Maha	rashtra	Land
Revenue	Code.	The costs	on being recovered be
credited t	o the ac	count of th	e State Government.

¶19

At this stage, an oral prayer for Stay of our Order dismissing the Petition is made. We reject the same. 7. In view of dismissal of the Public Interst Litigation itself, the intervention applications do not survive and the same stand disposed of accordingly.

¶20

[J.N.Patel, J.]

Inayat Ibrahim Mukadam v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Inayat Ibrahim Mukadam 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yashwant M. Gavand Vs the Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and Ors.

Noormohammed Khatri and 7 Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Narayan Shakharam Ghagare and Ors. Vs Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika, Mumbai, through Its Commissioner

Dinesh D.Kamat Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Prof. Padmakar Ganpat Kharat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bhimshakti Sanghatna Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sudam Vitthal Hivarkar Vs City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. and Ors.

Chandravardhan B. Parekh Vs the Board of Control for Cricket in India

Arvind Sadashiv Natekar Vs Anilkumar Popatlal Bamb and Anr.

Shri. Hiren Shashikant Pandya Vs Smt. Meghna Hiren Pandya Nee Meghna Chandravadan Bhatt

Adhyaatman-Bhamini Vs Jagdish Ambalal Shah

Mansingh Vasantrao Jagdale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Gobind Lekhraj Alwani Vs Renu Gobind Alwani

Satyesh Raghava Shetty Vs Sangeeta Satyesh Shetty