Dismissed

Krantikari Jaihind Sena and 4 Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and 17 Ors.

Bombay HC18 Nov 2010PIL/29/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a PIL challenging the legality of an MHADA redevelopment project in Mumbai. The court held that petitioners Nos. 2 to 6 lost their grievances by executing agreements, and Petitioner No. 1 lacked locus standi.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed as the grievance of petitioners 2 to 6 did not survive post-agreement and petitioner 1 lacked locus standi.

Krantikari Jaihind Sena and 4 Ors. Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2010)

srk

pil-29-10.sxw

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

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.29 OF 2010

¶6

Krantikari Jaihind Sena though Mr. Sudhir Yashwant Surve and others. ... Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents

¶7

Mr. R.N. Kachawe for the petitioners.

¶8

Mr. J.S. Saluja, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 5. Mr. A.G. Damle for respondent No.9. Mr. P.S. Dani for respondent No.10 to 14.

¶9

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.

¶10

Thursday, November 18, 2010

¶11

P .C.

¶12

This PIL was filed in November, 2009 by petitioner No.1Krantikari Jaihind Sena, through Mr. Sudhir Yashwant Surve, Member of Political Party and five other petitioners who are occupants of the rooms in the property belonging to MHADA Vasahat, Mulund, Mumbai,

¶13

The petitioners challenge the legality and validity of the development project of the concerned property being building Nos.1 to 56 of MHADA at Mhada Colony, Mulund, Mumbai.

¶14

At the hearing of this petition, it is brought to our notice that as stated in the affidavit-in-reply dated 6th September, 2010 by respondent No.9, out of total 1399 members who are in occupation of the rooms in the above

srk

pil-29-10.sxw

buildings, as many as 1395 members have given their consent for redevelopment and 1385 members have already executed agreements and 1360 members agreements have already been registered. It is also pointed out by the respondents that petitioner Nos.2 to 6 themselves have also executed agreements for redevelopment which was impugned in the petition filed in November, 2009. Hence the grievance raised in the petition by petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 does not survive. Consequently, the petition itself does not survive as far as petitioner Nos.2 to 6 are concerned. Petitioner No.1 does not have any locus standi to challenge the impugned project of redevelopment of the properties belonging to MHADA.

¶19

As far as the issue of public interest involved in the redevelopment of the properties of MHADA, the learned counsel for the petitioners is not in a position to show as to how public interest will be adversely affected by the redevelopment project being undertaken jointly by MHADA, the members and the developer.

¶20

In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.

¶21

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶22

S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.

Krantikari Jaihind Sena and 4 Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and 17 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krantikari Jaihind Sena and 4 Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and 17 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandu Piru Shekuwale Vs the Principal, Chief Conservator of Forest, Dept. of Forest and 4 Ors.

Prajasattak Samajik Seva Smastha Vs Superintendent of Police and Ors.

Prajasattak Samajik Seva Smastha Vs Superintendent of Police and Ors.

Bhartiya Kisan Sangh and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sharadchandra S/O Wamanrao Dongre and Anr. Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Chief Secy. and Oths

Rajkumar S/O Ramchandra Rajdeo and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Secretary and Others

Citizen Forum, Mah. Registered Under the Societies Regn. Act Thr. Its President Baba Daware Vs the Union of India, Thr. Its Secty., and 4 Ors.

Shankar S/O Balwantrao Shende and 2 Ors. Vs the Nagpur Municipal Corporation Thr. Its Commissioner and 5 Ors.

Vs Mah.Medical Council and Ors.

Satyavan Keshav Manjrekar and Anr. Vs Revenue Commissioner, Konkan Division, Navi Mumbai and 11 Ors.

Association of Management of Medical and Dental Colleges Vs the State of Maharashtra

Clean and Efficient Civil Administration and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Durgesh Warty and 1 Ors. Vs the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and 4 Ors.

pushpa s. babla alias bhatia and Ors. Vs reshma lalchhmandas babla alias bhatia and Ors.