Review petition dismissed as the Division Bench had directed re-examination of the petitioner's address on the Election ID Card by the authority, which subsequently passed a fresh order by the time of this hearing, rendering the review unnecessary.
Return of the petitioner's Original ID Election Card from the Registry.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-: 1 :-
rpwl-25/10
srp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (L) NO. 25 OF 2010.
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 616 OF 2010
Sarvar Ali Sayyed Ali. ..Petitioner. Versus The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. ..Respondent
Mr. V. P. Sawant i/b Mr. S. M. Kambale for the petitioner. Mr. S. S. Pakale for the respondent.
Coram : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & R. V. MORE, JJ. Date : September 6, 2010.
P. C. :
N. Patel dismissed two writ petitions, namely, Writ Petition (L) No. 562 of 2010 and Writ Petition (L) No. 563 of 2010. The present review petition is filed by the petitioner in Writ Petition (L) No. 562 of 2010.
Mr. Sawant, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the review petitioner
submitted that following observations made by the Division Bench in
paragraph no.4 of its order dated 11/3/2010 are incorrect qua his client.
We may reproduce those observations.
“4. .............. On going through the order passed by the respondent, after giving fresh hearing to the petitioners it has
rpwl-25/10
-: 2 :-
been found that none of the documents which have been produced by the petitioners go to show that the petitioners were in occupation of the structure prior to the datum line of T.P. Scheme i.e. prior to 1.3.1961 or for that reason 1.1.1995................”
-: 3 :-
rpwl-25/10
passed a fresh order on 19-4-2010. This is so stated by Mr. Devendra Kumar Jain, Assistant Municipal Commissioner in his affidavit. In view of the fact that fresh order is passed, it is not necessary to entertain the present review petition. It will be open to the petitioner, if he is so advised, to challenge the said order. Needless to say that the petitioner can raise all the contentions including the contention that the premises at Sulekha Manzil were in existence since prior to 1995, if he files any petition. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
(R.V. More, J.)
(Smt. Ranjana Desai,J.)
Sarvar Ali Sayyed Ali
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Ranjana Desai
R. V. More
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
