Disposed

Jumna Prasad and Ors. v. Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation

Bombay HC4 Aug 2009WP/7014/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge bench did not express any opinion on the merits of the writ petition regarding bazaar fees charged from hawkers but directed the parties to exchange detailed representations and ensure a hearing before the respondent could dispose of the matter.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners to submit detailed representation; Respondent to consider it after hearing and communicate the order.

Jumna Prasad and Ors. Vs Mira Bhayandar… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 7014 OF 2008

¶5

Jumna Prasad & Ors. ... Petitioners.

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Mira-Bhayandar Municipal Corporation. ... Respondents.

¶8

Mr D.V.Mirajkar advocate for the petitioners.

¶9

Mr. R.S.Apte with S.K.Chaturvedi i/b. M/s. Chaturvedi & Associates advocates for the Respondents.

¶10

CORAM : Smt. Ranjana Desai &

¶11

A.A.Sayed, JJ.

¶12

DATE : August 4, 2009.

¶13

P.C.

¶14

Petitioner No. 1 to 5 herein are hawkers. Petitioner No. 6

¶15

claims to be a registered Non-Governmental Organization working for the benefit and interest of weaker sections of the society and as such it looks after the interest of the petitioner Nos. 1 to 5.

¶16

In this petition, filed under Section 226 of the Constitution

¶17

India, the petitioners have inter alia, prayed that the respondent, its

¶18

¶19

agents/Bazaar Fee Contractors and persons claiming through and under them be restrained from collecting daily Bazaar Fees from the persons engaged in the commercial activity of Hawking articles, Foods Stuff on public areas/ public streets in Mira-Bhayandar Municipal Corporation areas.

¶20

We have heard Mr. Mirajkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Apte, learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent.

¶21

Mr. Mirajkar, interalia submitted that the Bazar Fee is collected by the respondents from the petitioners without establishing Municipal Markets. Mr. Apte, learned Counsel for the first respondent, however, denied this contention raised by Mr. Mirajkar. He drew our attention to order passed by the Division Bench of this Court (Swanter Kumar,

¶22

C.J. and J.P.Devdhar, J.) in PIL No. 80 of 2007, dated 13^th Mach, 2008. He submitted that this public interest litigation was filed by the 6th petitioner raising similar contentions and by order dated 13^th March, 2008, this Court directed the first respondent to consider the representation made by the hawkers without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. Mr. Apte submitted that the present petitioners were requested by the first respondent to attend their office

¶23

¶24

in connection with representations, dated 24.2.2009, 2.3.2004 and 20.4.2009 addressed by the 6th respondent, however, the petitioners never attended office of the first respondent. In the circumstances, the first respondent had no option but to decide the said representations in their absence.

¶25

Mr. Mirajkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners on the other hand submitted that first respondent, had in fact called the the petitioners in connection with the representation of one Omprakash Maurya dated 24.4.2009 in respect of alleged beating and/or some illegalities committed by the Bazar Contractor and not in connection with their representations.

¶26

At this stage, we do not want to go into these rival contentions of the parties. The fact, however, remains that the petitioners have not appeared before the first respondent.

¶27

At this stage, Mr.Mirajkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners will file a detailed representation raising

¶28

¶29

all the contentions which have been raised in this petition, within a period of two weeks from today. Mr. Apte, learned Counsel for the first respondents submits that the first respondent will consider the said representation in accordance with law, after giving hearing to the petitioners and order passed therein will be communicated to the petitiones at the address mentioned in the cause title.

¶30

In the circumstances, in our opinion, following order would meet the ends of justice :-

¶31

ORDER

¶32

(a) The petitioners shall address a detailed representation to the first respondent within a period of two weeks from today.

¶33

(b) The first respondent shall consider the representation of the petitioners within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt thereof, after giving hearing to the petitioners and/or their representative/s.

¶34

¶35

(c) The order passed on the representation of the petitioners shall be communicated to the petitioners within a period of one week from the date of its passing at the address mentioned in the cause title.

¶36

We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Contentions of both sides are kept open.

¶37

[Smt. Ranjana Desai, J.]

¶38

[A.A.Sayed, J.]

¶39

Jumna Prasad and Ors. v. Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jumna Prasad and Ors. v. Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation

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

Sadashiv Namdeo Kalate and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vitthal Shankar Nadekar Vs the Deputy Collector, Solapur and Ors.

Kamlakar Govind Rane Vs Karmavir Kakasaheb Wagh Sahkari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Ors.

Bhartiya Suraksha Rakshak and General Kamgar Union Vs Pune District Security Guards Board and Ors.

Manohar B. Gori Vs the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and Anr.

Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.