Petitioner challenged lapses in handling July 2005 Mithi River floods. Court noted an affidavit confirming satisfactory completion of the first stage (desilting, widening, encroachment removal). No further direction was deemed necessary.
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.
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2116 OF 2005
Kirit Somaiya
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Ors.
... Respondents.
Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Advocate, with Mr. D.R. Mehta, instructed by M/s. Dhruve Liladhar & Co., for the petitioner.
Mr. K.R. Belosey, Government Pleader, for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 10.
Mr. K.K.Singhvi, Senior Advocate, with Mrs. P.A. Purandare, for respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
Mr. B.A. Desai, Additional Solicitor General, with Ms. S.V. Bharucha, for respondent Nos. 7, 10 and Union of India.
Mr. Sarang Aradhye, instructed by Mr. R.V.Govilkar, for respondent No.8.
Mrs. Kiran Bhagalia for the MMRDA.
CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE, Ag. C.J., & V.M. KANADE, J.
DATE: JANUARY 17, 2007 .
P.C.
Heard Mr. Dwarkadas and Mr. Mehta in support of the
petition as also the counsel appearing for various respondents.
-2-
-3-
has resulted into the carrying capacity of the river going up by three times.
course. In view of what is stated in this affidavit, nothing further is required to be directed in the petition. The petition stands disposed of.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
V.M. KANADE, J.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether appropriate measures were taken by authorities following the Mithi River floods in Mumbai.
Kirit Somaiya
State of Maharashtra
H.L. Gokhale
V.M. Kanade
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
