Allowed

Dr. Monica Matani v. State of Maharashtra and 7 Ors.

Bombay HC6 Aug 2009PIL/70/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL regarding construction damage on the Varsova Ghatkopar Metro line, the Court accepted an undertaking from the contractor and MMRDA. Respondents agreed to repair damages, avoid vibratory hammers, and ensure strict adherence to standards. The petition was disposed of on these terms.

What did the court decide?

Undertaking accepted for repair of damages, cessation of vibratory hammer usage, and strict adherence to construction standards.

Dr. Monica Matani Vs State of Maharashtra and… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.70 OF 2009

Dr. Monica Matani.

..Petitioner.

v/s.

State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶8

..Respondent/s.

¶9

Petitioner in person.

¶10

Mr.J.J.Bhatt a/w. Mrs. Anjali Chandarkar i/b. Mulla & Mulla for Respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶11

Mr. N.P.Pandit, AGP for state.

¶12

Mr.Kiran Bagalia for MMRDA.

¶13

CORAM:- SWATANTER KUMAR,CJ. AND A.M.KHANWILKAR, J

¶14

DATED :- AUGUST 6, 2009.

¶15

P.C.

¶16

We have heard the Petitioner who has appeared in person and the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent. In the Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has made various grievances

¶17

in regard to the Varsova Ghatkopar Section Metro. According to her, the Respondents while making such project have not taken care of various aspects and standards of international level. According to her, even standards specified in terms of the manual published by Bureau of Indian

¶18

¶19

Standards are not being adhered to. She has also raised grievance that by use of Vibratory hammer, vibration has caused extensive damage to her property. To justify the stand she has placed on record some photographs. On this premiss, she has prayed various reliefs including for security and safety of buildings and structures along line of construction activities of such large infrastructure projects by providing for some means such as compulsory Insurance and other matters. She has also prayed that some action should be taken in accordance with the law against the Contractor and MMRDA who has awarded the contract. As both have acted in breach of the specified standards. It is not necessary for us to refer to the various contentions raised before us. Suffice it to note that the stand taken by the MMRDA as well as the Respondent No.3 who is executing the contract has been quite fair and they voluntarily wish to give an undertaking on the following terms.

¶20

(i) The damage caused to the property by use of Vibratory

¶21

Hammer will be made good and will be repaired as a mark of good gesture of Respondent No.3 within a period of six weeks from today. The Petitioner will fully cooperate. In the event of non cooperation, they will have no responsibility to repair the

¶22

¶23

damaged property.

¶24

(ii)Counsel for the MMRDA as well as the Respondent No.3 have

¶25

stated that they will see that the project executed is strictly in terms of contract and the specified standards and every effort will be made not to cause any damage to property belonging to Petitioner or public.

¶26

(iii)They shall not use at all Vibratory Hammer technique to execute the work. In fact they are not using it as of now. The MMRDA in joint venture with the respondent No.3, however, states that they will supervise and ensure that the work is executed as per the prescribed standards.

¶27

The undertaking given on behalf of the Respondent No.3 is accepted by the Court and the Petition is disposed of on the above terms. The Petitioner is also at liberty to help the authorities concerned by giving her suggestions if any, which may be appropriately considered by the Authorities.

¶28

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶29

A.M.KHANWILKAR, J

Dr. Monica Matani v. State of Maharashtra and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Monica Matani v. State of Maharashtra and 7 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

Shinde Sarjerao Mahadev Vs Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra and 7 Ors.

Support India Foundation and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Anant Hari Padhye Gurjar and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anant Hari Padhye Gurjar and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pandurang Gabaji Pavse and Anr. Vs the Director General of Police and Ors.

Kasim Mohammed a. Badsha Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rajan Sitaram Samant Vs Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Network of Maharashtra People With Hiv Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

Shri.Shailesh Narayan Shinde Vs Shri.Chetan Vitthal Tupe

Shri.Shailesh Naryan Shinde Vs the Pune Municipal Corporation

1. Smt. Shakuntala Shivaji Salunkhe and Ors. Vs 1. Shri Datta Panchayatan and Ors.

Dr. Umesh Tanaji Jadhav and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

National Dalit Movement for Justice Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dr. Umesh Tanaji Jadhav and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.