Dismissed

Ms. Jyotiben B. Bawisi v. Vardhan Builders and 4 ORS.53

Bombay HC24 Sept 2010PIL/16/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL, the petitioner sought directions to demolish portions of a building and shops allegedly constructed in violation of sanctioned plans. The court noted the Municipal Corporation had taken action after receiving the petitioner's notice. The petition was dismissed as there was no reason to entertain it further on the Malay legal system. The contention regarding good faith was noted open f

What did the court decide?

The court dismissed the writ petition, noting the respondent Corporation had taken appropriate action. The plea of non-bona fide filing was reserved.

Ms. Jyotiben B. Bawisi Vs Vardhan Builders… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2010)

PIL.16.09

mst

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

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.16 OF 2009

¶6

Ms.Jyotiben B. Bawisi Petitioner versus Vardhan Builders and others Respondents

¶7

Rakesh Kumar with Soni Kumari i/by Vijendra Jabra for petitioner. P.K.Samdani, Sr.Adv. i/by M/s.Kishore Thakoredas & Co. for respondent no.1.

¶8

K.K.Singhvi, Sr.Adv. with Geeta Joglekar for respondent BMC.

¶9

R.J.Mane, AGP for respondent State.

¶10

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

¶11

DATE : 24^th September 2010

¶12

P. C. :

¶13

In this petition purporting to be a public interest litigation, the petitioner claims to be a social worker and to be involved in various social activities relating to the environment. She prays for a direction to the respondent Municipal Corporation to demolish portions of a building called "Poseidon" in the property bearing survey No.14, Hissa No.2, CTS No.1216/2-C, Opp. Wild Park, Off. Yari Road, Versova, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 061 and also to demolish 21 shops which are allegedly constructed by respondent no.1 in violation of a sanctioned plan dated 19th September 2005. The petitioner has also prayed for various other

PIL.16.09

mst

reliefs which relate to construction allegedly carried out in violation of sanctioned plans.

¶18

The first respondent has filed a reply. It is contended that the petition is not filed bona fide and that the petitioner has been put up by the contractors whose services were terminated by respondent no.1. Respondent no.1 has pointed out that initially plans were sanctioned for the construction of residential flats on the ground floor but subsequently respondent no.1 had applied for revising the plans for constructing shops instead of flats on the ground floor and revised plans were sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation. As regards the petitioner's grievance about the area which was sanctioned as a recreational ground but since paved, it is the case of respondent no.1 that as per the plans two recreational grounds were sanctioned out of which one is being utilized as a garden while the other is paved as required. It is submitted that the flat owners park their vehicles on such land and respondent no.1 cannot be blamed for violation of the sanctioned plans.

¶19

Insofar as the respondent Corporation is concerned, Nitin Keny, an Engineer of the K-West Ward has filed an affidavit. The respondent Corporation has taken the same view as regards one of the two areas set apart as recreational ground. It is stated that one recreational ground is utilized as garden and the other is paved. It is stated that whenever the Corporation has found any irregularities or illegalities, the Corporation has issued a notice under section 53(1) of the MRTP Act and the Corporation will follow the procedure under the said Act. In the chart at Exhibit-1

PIL.16.09

mst

annexed to the said affidavit the Corporation has set out details of the objections raised by the petitioner, findings on actual site inspection and the action taken.

¶24

Having perused the aforesaid affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Corporation along with the annexure thereto, we are satisfied that the petitioner having brought the attention of the Corporation to the alleged irregularities, the respondent Corporation has taken action in accordance with law. We, therefore, see no reason to entertain this writ petition. As regards the contention of respondent no.1 that the petition is not filed bona fide, we do not propose to express any opinion and make it clear that it will be open to respondent no.1 to raise such a contention in any future proceedings, if filed. As regards the allegations made by the petitioner regarding alleged violation of an exemption order passed under section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, the defence of respondent no.1 is that the exemption order relied upon by the petitioner pertains to a separate parcel of land admeasuring 233 sq.meters while the building in question has been constructed on another land admeasuring about 4000 and odd sq.meters. Subject to the above observations, the petition is dismissed.

¶25

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶26

DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.

Ms. Jyotiben B. Bawisi v. Vardhan Builders and 4 ORS.53

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms. Jyotiben B. Bawisi v. Vardhan Builders and 4 ORS.53

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

Onkarnath Lalchandji Karva vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Harshad Gawade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The Kopari Bachav Samitee and Ors. Vs State of Maharshtra and Anr.

Harshad Gawade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S. Resources of Aviation Redressal Association Vs Union of India and 2 Ors.

Brashtachar Nirmoolan Sanghatana and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Ramboz Mitra Mandal Vs Mhada and 3 Ors.

Viniyog Parivar Trust and Anr. Vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and Anr.

P. a. Inamdar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharasahtra and Ors.

Sakshi D/O. Sharad Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sitaram Hari Gurav and Ors. Vs Slum Ehabilitation Authority and Ors.

Shri Laxmi Kreeda and Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs the District Social Welfare Officer and Anr.

The Sardar Vallabbhai NAGAR-1 Co-Operative Housing Societys Union Ltd. Vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and 7 Ors.

Sou. Madhubala Ramesh Bhore Vs Smt. Poonam Jagdish Pandey and Others