Dismissed

Sawinder Singh Keer v. Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC24 Sept 2008RPW/36/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petition against a PIL order dismissed as no error apparent on face. Court clarified terminology error. PIL dismissed; costs awarded and recovery mechanism invoked under Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-. Costs recoverable as fine under Maharashtra Land Revenue Code if not deposited within 4 weeks.

Sawinder Singh Keer Vs Municipal Corpn… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
 REVIEW PETITION NO.36 OF 2008
 IN
 WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO.42 OF 2008

¶4

 Sawinder Singh Keer .. Petitioner
 Vs.

¶5

 Municipal Corporation of
 Greater Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents

¶6

 Mr.Bhavesh Parmar for the petitioner

¶7

 Ms.P.A.Purandare for respondent nos.1

¶8

 Ms.S.M.Dandekar, A.G.P. for respondent nos.2

¶9

 Mr.A.Y.Bookwala, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Dinesh Shah
 i/b M/s.Lilani Shah & Co. for respondent nos.2

¶10

 CORAM : J.N.PATEL &
 K.K.TATED, JJ.

¶11

DATED : 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2008

¶12

 P.C.:

¶13

 1. The learned counsel appearing for

¶14

 respondent nos.3 states that on 9.7.08, this court
 has passed an order in P.I.L. No.42 of 2008 which
 is subject matter of review wherein the statement
 purported to have been made by the learned counsel

¶15

¶16

 for respondent nos.3 has been referred. It is made

¶17

 clear by the learned counsel for respondent nos.3
 that he did make a statement that respondent nos.3
 has initiated certain action against the petitioner
 who is member of club Millenium House and that
 disputes are pending between the parties which came
 to be recorded as litigation in para 4 of the
 order.

¶18

 2. In view of this, our order be corrected and
 read accordingly. The word ’litigation’ in para 4
 on page 3 be substituted by ’dispute’ as the party
 should not suffer for the error on the part of the
 court in putting a wrong word in the order.

¶19

 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
 petitioner who has sought review of our order. He
 submits that this court was influenced by the fact
 that the counsel for respondent no.3 stated that
 there are litigations pending between petitioner
 and respondent no.3. Today the learned counsel for
 respondent no.3 has clarified and stated that what
 he stated was not litigation but disputes. The
 court has corrected it accordingly.

¶20

¶21

 4. We have gone through the review petition

¶22

 and we do not find any error apparent on the face
 of the record which calls for interference. This
 court while dismissing the PIL filed by the
 petitioner referred to the compilation of
 guide-lines to be followed for entertaining
 letters/petitions received in this court as Public
 Interest Litigation. Though such an exercise is
 also to be undertaken by the High Court and on the
 Appellate Side Chapter IV Rule 2A, there is a
 specific provision that no petition filed in P.I.L.
 should be entertained at the principal seat without
 obtaining orders from the Honourable the Chief
 Justice at Bombay and from the Senior most Judge
 available at the concerned benches but similar
 provision is not there in the Rules framed on the
 Original Side but still we do not find any reason
 why this court should not abide by the guide-lines
 which are followed by the Honourable Supreme Court
 in the matter and we are more than satisfied that
 this is not a fit case to be treated as P.I.L. and
 therefore, we dismiss it with cost which we have
 quantified at Rs.25,000/- for abuse of the process

¶23

¶24

 of the court.

¶25

 5. Review Petition stands dismissed
 accordingly with cost which is quantified at
 Rs.10,000/-. The cost should be paid by the
 petitioner within 4 weeks from the date of passing
 of the order otherwise the Collector (Mumbai) to
 recover the same as fine by resorting to the
 provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
 In case the cost is deposited in court, the same to
 be credited in the High Court Legal Aid Committee.

¶26

 ( J.N. PATEL, J )

¶27

 ( K.K. TATED, J )

Sawinder Singh Keer v. Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sawinder Singh Keer v. Municipal Corpn. of Gr. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Waman Ramchandra Madya Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Chandubhai Chunibhai Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary, Mantralaya and 4 Others

Union of India and Ors. Vs Amit Jain

Varsha Laxmanrao Deshpande Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ramesh Ramchandra Badi and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Radhakrushna Keshavrao Ingole Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.