Disposed

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

Bombay HC16 Jul 2010WP/1705/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging slum rehabilitation sanctions was disposed of by directing the High Power Committee to consider the petitioners' grievances within three months if approached within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the High Power Committee to consider petitioners' grievances within two weeks of approach and decide within three months.

Kheraj Devshi Nandu and 4 Ors. Vs the Slum… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

W.P. (L) No.1081 of 2010

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 1081 OF 2010

¶5

Mr. Kheraj Devshi Nandu and others. Versus

¶6

The Slum Rehabilitation Authority and others.

¶7

... Petitioners

¶8

... Respondents

¶9

Mr. V.J. Hegde for the petitioners. Mr. V.D. Patil for respondent No.1. Mr. Milind More, Assistant Government Pleader for State.

¶10

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

¶11

DATED : 16TH JULY, 2010

¶12

P.C.

¶13

In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, five in numbers, have challenged the sanction granted by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority on 26th September, 1998, the letter of intent dated 25th June, 2006, the intimation of approval dated 22nd January, 2007 and the commencement certificate, if any, granted by the SRA in favour of respondent Nos.2,3 and 4 in respect of the lands viz. the land bearing CTS No.835 (pt.), 836 (pt.), 839/1 (pt.) and 839(pt.) of village Ambivali at Azad Nagar, Andheri (West), Mumbai. The petitioners have also stated in para 34 of the petition that when the petitioners approached the High Power Committee to look into the petitioners' grievances against the above sanction of letter of intent etc., the High Power Committee refused to accept the petitioners' complaint.

¶14

¶15

W.P. (L) No.1081 of 2010

¶16

The learned counsel for the respondents states that the tenor of the petition appears to be that an employee of the High Power Committee has refused to accept the petitioners' grievance but the High Power Committee was inclined to look into the petitioners' complaint.

¶17

Without going into the above controversy, we are inclined to dispose of this petition with the direction that if the petitioners approach the High Power Committee with the above grievances within two weeks from today, the High Power Committee shall look into the petitioners' grievance and take a decision in the matter as expeditiously as possible and preferably within three months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶18

4. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.

¶19

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶20

S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Maruti Mura Vagare Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dr. Pankaj P. D. Biraris and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtr and Anr.

Kishor Nandalal Pahuja Vs Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation

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

Arun Onkar Narkhede Vs Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust and Ors.

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