Disposed

Mrs. Shaina N. C. and 10 Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and 14 Ors.

Bombay HC8 Jul 2010PIL/75/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In PILs challenging GMR 1999 regulations on redevelopment passages, the High Court disposed of petitions due to a 2008 Government Notification modifying those regulations. The court granted liberty to file a fresh petition once the Committee report supporting the modifications is produced.

What did the court decide?

Petitions disposed of with liberty to file a fresh petition to challenge the Notification dated 30th July 2008 after the Committee report is produced.

Mrs. Shaina N. C. and 10 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

PIL Nos.75/06&85/06

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 75 OF 2006

¶6

Mrs.Shaina N.C. (Shaina Chudasama Munot) and others

¶7

) ).. Petitioners

¶8

versus

¶9

State of Maharashtra and others ).. Respondents

¶10

ALONG WITH PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 85 OF 2006

¶11

Mrs.Shaina N.C. (Shaina Chudasama Munot) and others

¶12

) ).. Petitioners

¶13

versus

¶14

State of Maharashtra and others ).. Respondents

¶15

Mr. Abhay Dhadiwal i/b Khaitan & Jayakar for the Petitioners in PIL No.75/06.

¶16

Ms. Neha Choksi i/b. L.J. Law for the Petitioners in PIL No.85/06. Mr. D.A. Nalawade, Government Pleader, for the State. Mr. K.K. Singhvi, Senior Advocate with Ms.Shobha Ajitkumar for Mumbai Municipal Corporation. Ms. Kavita Shah for Respondent No.12. Mr. V.P. Pandey i/b A.T. Gade for Respondent No.13. Mr. R.A. Thorat for Respondent Nos.15, 6, 18, 19, 21, 24 and 26 in PIL No.85/06.

¶17

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 8TH JULY 2010

¶18

P.C.

¶19

By these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

¶20

¶21

PIL Nos.75/06&85/06

¶22

in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, the Petitioners had challenged the provisions of Regulations 2(11), 17 and 31 of the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1999 and certain consequential directions were also prayed for. The grievance was that said impugned Regulations permitted redevelopment of buildings with narrow passage which would not allow fire engines to have access to the buildings in case of fire or any safety hazards.

¶23

During the pendency of the petitions, the State Government has issued Notification dated 30^th July 2008 under Section 37(2) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 modifying some of the Regulations of the Development Control Regulations. The Notification further indicates that the modifications are made on the basis of the recommendations of the Committee headed by Chief Engineer (DP), Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai with regard to the concessions to be granted for redevelopment in gaothan area.

¶24

In view of the above Notification, it is obvious that the petitions as originally constituted will not survive. It appears that in view of the above Notification, the petitioners had sought amendment of the petition for challenging the said Notification also and this Court had granted the prayer for amendment by order dated 18^th September 2008.

¶25

¶26

PIL Nos.75/06&85/06

¶27

It appears that the said amendment is not yet carried out.

¶28

Having regard to the contents of the Notification dated 30^th July 2008 and the fact that the modifications made by the said Notification are based on the report of the Committee, which report is not on the record of these proceedings, we are of the view that it would be in the fitness of things if these petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh petition, if at all the petitioners are so inclined to challenge the said Notification dated 30^th July 2008, after the State Government serves a copy of the said report of the Committee headed by the Chief Engineer (DP) Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai with regard to concessions to be granted for redevelopment in gaothan area. The copy of the report shall be served upon the learned advocates for the petitioners within two weeks from today.

¶29

Subject to the above liberty, petitions stand disposed of.

¶30

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶31

S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.

Mrs. Shaina N. C. and 10 Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and 14 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Shaina N. C. and 10 Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and 14 Ors.

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

Narendra S/O Jaggannathji Mohata and 4 Ors. Vs U.O.I. Thr. Pr. Secty., Min. of Environment and Forest and 3 Ors.

Birudeo Anandrao Lawate and Anr. Vs Alka Anant Desai and Ors.

Shaikh Mohd. Khalid Mukhtar Ahmad and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The Editor Lokmat Vs Maharashtra State'S Road Transport Officers

Maruti Mura Vagare Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vidyadhar Moreshwar Kulkarni Vs the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Kishor Nandalal Pahuja Vs Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation

Pradip Chandrakant Indulkar Vs Municipal Corporation for City of Thane and Ors.

Sarika W/O. Ajay Patil Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rajendar Damodar Sawant and 14 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtr and 7 Ors.

M/S. P.M. Shah and Co. and Anr. Vs Union of India and 5 Ors.

Liyakat Shaikh Vs Metropolitan Commissioner and Ors.

Akhil Bhartiya Bhrashtachar Virodhi Samaj Punarnirman Samiti Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Liyakat Shaikh Vs Metropolitan Commissioner and Ors. Mohammadi Husaini Masjid Trust