Disposed

Navjeevan Rahivashi Sra Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC28 Sept 2010WP/1423/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition by directing the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to examine the petitioner's grievance regarding its letter dated 11 February 2010 without adjudicating on the merits of the controversy.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of; the SRA is directed to look into the grievance raised in the letter dated 11 February 2010.

Navjeevan Rahivashi Sra Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2010)

１

srk

wp-1423-10

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1423 OF 2010

¶6

M/s. Navjeevan Rahivashi SRA Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. ... Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents

¶7

Mr. V.Mishra for the petitioner.

¶8

Mr. J.S.Saluja, Assistant Government Pleader for State-respondent No.1. Mr. G.D. Uttangale for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶9

Mr. S.U. Kamdar, Senior Advocate with Mr. S.G. Surana for respondent No.4.

¶10

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

¶11

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

¶12

P .C.

¶13

The grievance raised by the petitioner-Co-operative Housing Society is about non allotment of tenements to six of the members whose names have figured in the list of members eligible for rehabilitation in accordance with the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme sanctioned by the authority.

¶14

The learned counsel for the developer submits that Writ Petition No.2582 of 2009 filed by the concerned six persons has already been disposed of on 1 February 2010 by permitting those petitioners to file suit with respect to the subject matter of the petition for similar reliefs.

¶15

The learned counsel for SRA places on record a copy of the letter dated 11 February 2010 pointing out that the rehabilitation building is unauthorisedly occupied and the work carried out is not as per the approved

２

srk

wp-1423-10

plan. One of the requirements to be complied with by the developer is verification from A.R.S. (SRA) regarding allotment without lottery and action taken report regarding HPC orders for allotment to Navjeevan Cooperative Housing Society.

¶20

The learned counsel for developer submits that this issue is separate from the grievance posed in this petition.

¶21

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that since the SRA is already looking into the alleged non-implementation of the sanctioned scheme, the grievance posed by the petitioner-society in this petition can also be looked into by the SRA while deciding the issues raised in the letter dated 11 February 2010.

¶22

This petition is disposed of. The SRA shall look into the grievance posed in this petition in relation to the issues raised in letter dated 11 February 2010. It is clarified that we have not gone into the merits of the controversy or the rival contentions raised in this petition. All issues are kept open.

¶23

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶24

DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

Navjeevan Rahivashi Sra Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Navjeevan Rahivashi Sra Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra and 2 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

Smt. Aruna Vimalkumar Garg Vs Dani Sadan Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.

Omkar Realtors and Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Slum Rehabilatation Authority and 6 Ors.

Shaan Education Societys Vs Union of India and Anr.

Sahakar Shiromany Vasantrao Kale Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Annasaheb Narsu Quane Vs the Chief Secretary, the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Siddharth Colony Vikas Seva Sangh Sahakari Grihnirman Sanstha Vs State of Maharashtra