Disposed

Murugendra Siddappa Khadabadi v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 6 Others

Bombay HC17 Feb 2010PIL/67/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A public interest litigation regarding garden adoption was disposed of. The Court held that since the adoption agreement relies on third-party toilet facilities permitted by policy, no interference is needed. However, the Corporation is directed to apply for permission to construct a toilet block if they wish to do so.

What did the court decide?

The Corporation was directed to apply for necessary permission for construction of a toilet block from MCZMA at its own cost if sought.

Murugendra Siddappa Khadabadi Vs the Municipal… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.67 OF 2008

¶4

Murugendra S. Khadabadi ...Petitioner. v.

¶5

The M.C.G.M. And Ors. ...Respondents.

¶6

Dr.Virendra Tulzapurkar, Sr.Counsel with Mr.Sandeep Parikh i/by A.R.Vaidya and Co. advs. For the Petitioner. Mr.K.K.Singhvi, Sr.Counsel with Mrs.Shobha Ajit Kumar, advs. For the Respondent Nos.1 to 5.

¶7

CORAM : F.I.REBELLO

¶8

& J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : 17th February , 2010.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

1 We have heard the learned counsel on both the sides. Issue

¶11

pertains to giving garden adoption, which is presently has been adopted

¶12

and has been maintained by the respondent nos.6 and 7.

¶13

2 Major contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is, considering the correspondence on record whereby Corporation earlier insisted on construction of toilet, Corporation thereafter could not have entered into contract with the respondent nos.6 and 7 for the purpose of adopting garden without constructing toilet. This Court by an order dated

¶14

10^th December, 2009 had called upon the Corporation to file an affidavit

¶15

¶16

in respect of existing structures and conversion of the same into toilet blocks. Subsequent to that an affidavit has been filed by Shri Narayan Pai wherein it is pointed out that Mali Chowky is situated in CRZ-II and on the sea ward side of the road and that will require permission from the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority and because of this difficulty, Corporation had entered into an agreement accepting alternative proposal put up by the respondent nos.6 and 7. Alternative proposal was to use toilet facilities of Hinduja Hospital in respect of which affidavit is filed but the said hospital has restricted user to the morning session to the senior citizen and to whom cards are issued by the respondent nos.6 and 7.

¶17

3 We have perused the policy. Policy does not mandate that there must be toilet facility, however, it can be permitted. In the light of that and considering that the respondent nos.6 and 7 are doing voluntary work, in our opinion, we need not presently interfere with the existing arrangement.

¶18

4 However, the Corporation considering that the property belongs to them to apply to the relevant authorities for permission for construction of toilet block. Counsel on behalf of the Corporation submits that they will apply for necessary permission for construction of

¶19

¶20

toilet from MCZMA. Considering the statement made by counsel for Corporation to apply and pursue the matter and if permission is granted to construct the same at their cost.

¶21

4 With the above observations, the Public Interest Litigation

¶22

stands disposed off.

¶23

(J.H. BHATIA,J.)

¶24

(F.I.REBELLO, J.)

Murugendra Siddappa Khadabadi v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murugendra Siddappa Khadabadi v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 6 Others

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

All India Human Rights Association (Aihra) and Anr. Vs the State of Maharshtra and 2 Ors.

Allka Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Ramchandra Tukaram Ghodake Vs Sangli Miraj Kupwad City Corporation and Ors.

Indrajeet Vasantro Suryavanshi Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Prabhakar Bhaskar Pradhan Vs the Board of Control for Cricket in India and 3 Ors.

Nagrik Chetna Manch and Anr. Vs Pune Municipal Corporation, Pune and Ors.

Mangala Sunil Verma Vs Backbay Colaba Association and 4 Ors.

Digamber Manikrao Bhosale Vs R. Rangasayee, Director, Ali Yavar Jung National Institute for Hearing Handicapped and 3 Ors.

Gandhinagar Vyapari Rahivasi Seva Society and Another Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 4 Others

Mumbai Taxi Association Vs State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Sahitra Samrat Lokshashir Anna Bhau Sathe Samaj Vikas Charitable Trust Vs the Chief Minister and 9 Ors.

Mohd. Rafiq Allahbaksh Sayyad and 9 Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and 5 Others

Sanjay Shirke Vs the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and 7 Others

Ishtiaq Ali and 3 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.