Dismissed

dr aslam qureshi s/o abdul salam v. muncipal corporation for greater mumbai and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC14 Jun 2007PIL/66/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A medical practitioner filed a public interest litigation complaining that contractors managing Pay and Park Zones allow free parking for politically influential, resident, or shop-keeper individuals without payment. The court held no public interest was involved as the successful bidder can choose to recover charges or grant free parking at their discretion.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 5000/-.

dr aslam qureshi s/o abdul salam Vs muncipal… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

 P.I.L. (L) NO. 41 OF 2007

¶4

 Dr. Aslam Qureshi s/o.

¶5

 Abdul Salam. ..... .. Petitioner.

¶6

vs.

¶7

 Municipal Corporation for

¶8

 Greater Mumbai and Ors. .. Respondents.

¶9

 Mr. V.T. Dube for Petitioners.

¶10

 Ms. Shobha Ajit Kumar for Respondents.

¶11

Coram: J.N. PATEL &,

¶12

 A.A. SAYED, JJ.

¶13

 Date: 14TH JUNE, 2007.

¶14

 P.C.

¶15

 . This petition has been filed in public interest
 by a medical practitioner with the grievance that the
 bonafide users of Pay and Park Zone are deprived of
 parking space as the contractors who are managing the
 Pay and Park Zone are allowing several people to park
 their vehicles without payment of any parking charges
 either because of their political influence or because

¶16

¶17

 they are residents/shop keepers having their

¶18

 residential places and/or shops and the offices nearby.
 The public interest which is sought to be espoused is
 that only those vehicle owners should be allowed to
 park in Pay and Park Zone who make payment for
 utilizing the said Pay and Park Zone. It is on this
 ground that the learned counsel for the petitioner
 seeks stay of the tendering process which is initiated
 by the respondent Municipal Corporation.

¶19

 2. We do not find any public interest involved in
 this litigation. If the person who is a successful
 bidder for a particular Pay and Park Zone is required
 to pay a certain fixed amount to the Bombay Municipal
 Corporation, it is his sweet choice whether he recovers
 the parking charges from a person parking in the Pay
 and Parking Zone allotted to him or allows to park his
 vehicle without charging any parking charge i.e. free
 of charge. Therefore, the PIL stands dismissed with
 cost quantified at Rs. 5000/-

¶20

 (J.N. Patel, J. )

¶21

 (A.A. Sayed, J. )

dr aslam qureshi s/o abdul salam v. muncipal corporation for greater mumbai and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

dr aslam qureshi s/o abdul salam v. muncipal corporation for greater mumbai and 2 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

Anil Agarwal Vs Union of India and Anr.

Ayub Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Bal Ganesh Foundation Vs Collector, Nashik and Anr.

Digambar Ramchandra Dawari and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rakesh Krushnaji Patil Vs Malegaon Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Manubhai Paragji Vashi Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Babasaheb Dnyanu Nalawade and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M. Raja Ram Vs Union of India and 2 Ors.

Nitin Vishwas Gadgil Vs Nishigandha Nitin Gadgil

Swastik Investment and Consultants through Proprietor Shri Ramesh Manilal Shah Vs M/S Ajay Manilal Shah through Proprietor Shri Ajay M Shah Deceases through Heirs

The State of Maharashtra Vs Mohamad R. Shaikh

Durvesh Amanulla Khan Vs Faria Durvesh Khan and Anr.

Rajashree Vijay Salunke Vs Vijay Dashrath Salunke (Deshmukh) and Ors.

Mrs.Jayashree W/O Deepak Chavan Vs Deepak Mahadev Chavan and Anr.