Dismissed

Bapu Narayan Romane v. the State of Maharashtgra and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC19 Jul 2010WP/1619/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition for writ jurisdiction challenging an order for slum rehabilitation was disposed of without hearing as the Slum Rehabilitation Authority undertook to act on the High Powered Committee's order within four weeks. The court explicitly left the merits unresolved.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of without entertaining it; merits reserved pending Authority action within four weeks.

Bapu Narayan Romane Vs the State of Maharashtgra and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2010)

WPL.268/2010

acd

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION (LODG) NO. 268 OF 2010

¶6

Bapu Narayan Romane ...Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors ...Respondents.

¶7

Mr. Pradeep J. Thorat, for the Petitioner. Ms. I. Culcuttawala, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 5. Ms. Nutan Moily, for Respondent No.4.

¶8

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

¶9

DATE : 19^th JULY, 2010.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

1 ] We need not go into the controversy as to whether the petitioner who was the Chief Promoter at the relevant time submitted a list of 14 persons who were held to be allegedly eligible, but the society refused to accept them to be so.

¶12

2] The petitioner’s case in his application before the High Powered Committee was that complete records and proceedings

¶13

WPL.268/2010

¶14

¶15

including annexures from LOI etc. be called for and the issue of eligibility of 14 persons whose names are mentioned the application to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority with flat members be gone into and decided afresh. We have gone into it and necessary action taken to set aside the orders made in their favour in that behalf.

¶16

3] By the impugned order, the High Powered Committee directed the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to take necessary action. Merely because the order of the High Powered Committee directs the Authority to take action against the committee members of the society does not mean that the Authority will take necessary steps and measures without proper inquiry and hearing all the affected parties.

¶17

4] Since it is stated on behalf of Slum Rehabilitation Authority that necessary action would be taken in pursuance of the order of the High Powered Committee within four weeks from today, this petition need not be entertained. Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶18

Needless to clarify that we have not gone into the merits of the controversy between the parties.

¶19

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶20

S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

Bapu Narayan Romane v. the State of Maharashtgra and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bapu Narayan Romane v. the State of Maharashtgra and 4 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

Chatrapati Rajaram Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited Vs Appaso Usman Pathan and Anr.

Kheraj Devshi Nandu and 4 Ors. Vs the Slum Rehabilitation Authority and 5 Ors.

Arun Onkar Narkhede Vs Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust and Ors.

Govind Ganu Mahadeshwar (Decd.)by Lrs.- Shrikrishna Govind Mahadeshwar and Ors. Vs Shantaram Shiva Pardhye and Ors.

Prakash Daryaji Sonekar Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greaster Mumbai and 2 Ors.

New Paradise Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.