Disposed

Randive Bharat Shrirang v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Aug 2009WP/2458/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted the petitioner leave to file a fresh application before the High Power Committee constituted under the Tulsiwadi judgment. It directed the Committee to decide independently within six months. The writ petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to approach the High Power Committee with a fresh application within four weeks. The Committee was directed to decide within six months. The petition was disposed of.

Randive Bharat Shrirang Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

AJN

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.2458 OF 2008

¶6

Randive Bharat Shrirang. ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents

¶9

Mr. A.M. Joshi for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. D.R. More for respondent 3.

¶11

CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & A.A. SAYED, JJ.

¶12

DATED : 14TH AUGUST, 2009.

¶13

P.C.:-

¶14

Rule.

¶15

Mr. More, learned counsel waives service for

¶16

respondent 3. Respondents 2, 4 and 5 are served. However, nobody is representing them. In this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has inter alia prayed that a direction

¶17

AJN

¶18

¶19

be issued to the respondents to give the petitioner accommodation in the Rehabilitation Scheme as is being made available to all the members of respondent 5- Society. It appears that the petitioner along with others had earlier filed a petition being Writ Petition No.3075 of 2007. That petition was disposed of by the Division Bench of this court (F.I. Rebello and R.M. Savant, JJ.) on 14/7/2007. The Division Bench noted the submission of learned counsel for the respondents therein that the petitioners had made applications for considering their cases under the S.R.A. Scheme and that those applications will be disposed of within a period of eight weeks from the date of the said order. The petition was disposed of after recording this statement and directing that until the claims of the petitioner and others are not decided, the petitioners therein shall not to be evicted from their transit accommodation. It appears that thereafter, the petitioner and others were called by respondent 2 and the petitioner’s application was rejected.

¶20

AJN

¶21

¶22

One of the grievances of the petitioner is that no reasoned order is passed by the respondents. Mr. More, learned counsel for respondent 3 has drawn our attention to the decision of the Full Bench judgment of this court in

¶23

Tulsiwadi Navnirman Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2008 (1) All.M.R. 318 . In that judgment, the Full Bench has issued certain directions so that the power to supervise and issue directions available in the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 can be exercised effectively. The State Government was directed to set up a High Power Committee consisting of a person, preferably a Principal Secretary, to be nominated by the Secretary, who shall be assisted by Chief Executive Officer / SRA, CEO/Vice President of MHADA and CEO/Vice President of MMRDA and Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Gr. Mumbai. Direction (d) of the Full Bench judgment is important. It reads thus:

¶24

AJN

¶25

¶26

“(d) That any complaint about eligibility of slum dwellers, eligible slum dwellers being denied tenement, developers not undertaking and completing the project as per the permission and approval so also within the stipulated time frame, transit accommodation being unavailable or not provided for etc. shall be addressed to this Committee and grievance be looked into by it accordingly. The Courts cannot be approached straightway unless and until above mentioned Committee is first moved by the aggrieved person in the form of an application/complaint in writing. If the grievance is not redressed or complaint/representation is not attended to, then and in that event this Court can be approached under Article 226 of the Constitution and not otherwise. Ordinarily, no person can approach this Court directly without exhausting the above remedy.”

¶27

In view of the above, in our opinion, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to approach the High Power Committee with a fresh application. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that such an application will be made within four weeks from today. If such an application is made, the High Power Committee shall decide it

¶28

AJN

¶29

¶30

independently and in accordance with law and in the light of the judgment of the Full Bench of this court in Tulsiwadi Navnirman’s case (supra) without being influenced by the fact that the petitioner’s earlier application has been rejected by respondent 3. The High Power Committee shall decide the said application expeditiously and, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the said application and the order passed by the High Power Committee be communicated to the petitioner.

¶31

5. The petition is disposed of.

¶32

[SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.]

Randive Bharat Shrirang v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Randive Bharat Shrirang v. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Marool Doodh Utpadak Welfare Association Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Marol Doodh Utpadak Welfare Association Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dr. Bhikaji Jagannath Waghdhare and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

V. D. Haldavnekar Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Anr.

Kawadu Tulashiram Khandale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Harshvardhan Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.