Allowed

Sachin Y. Shetty v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC20 Sept 2010WP/2404/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an order forfeiting tenements allotted to slum dwellers. The High Court set aside the order due to lack of show cause notice and hearing, directing the High Power Committee to serve reports and notices affording opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 17 July 2010 is set aside with liberty to the High Power Committee to serve the SRA report and issue a notice of hearing.

Sachin Y. Shetty Vs the State of Maharashtra — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2010)

１

srk

wp-L-1962-10

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.1962 OF 2010

¶5

Sachin Y. Shetty Versus

¶6

... Petitioner

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents

¶8

ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.1963 OF 2010

¶9

Geeta Tushar Thakkar ... Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents

¶10

ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.1964 OF 2010

¶11

Kewal Jitendre Thakkar

¶12

... Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

The State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents

¶15

Mr. S.M. Sakhardande with Ms. Nutan Moily for the petitioners. Mr. J.S. Saluja, Assistant Government Pleader for State-respondent Nos.1,2 and 7. Mr. J.G. Reddy for respondent Nos.3 to 5. Ms. Vidya S. Gharpure for respondent No.6.

¶16

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. Monday, September 20, 2010

¶17

P .C.

¶18

Rule. By consent, rule returnable forthwith. Counsel for the respondents waive service. With the consent of Counsel, taken up for final hearing.

２

srk

wp-L-1962-10

What is challenged in these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the common order dated 17 July 2010 of the High Power Committee of the Government of Maharashtra in application No.1152 of 2009 by which the High Power Committee (HPC) directed the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) to forfeit the four tenements allotted to the four slum dwellers including these three petitioners and reserved for project affected persons and also file criminal complaints against the said four slum dwellers including these petitioners.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners were not given any show cause notice or any notice of hearing before High Power Committee passed the impugned order on the basis of the report submitted by the SRA. On the aforesaid ground alone, we set aside the order dated 17 July 2010 at Exhibit `J' to the petition with liberty to the High Power Committee to serve a copy of the SRA report on all the four slum dwellers including the present petitioners and give them show cause notice and opportunity of hearing.

¶24

We direct that the High Power Committee shall serve the report of SRA and the notice of hearing upon the four slum dwellers including the petitioners. We further direct that in case of any difficulty in serving the notice upon the petitioners, a copy of the same shall be served on the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶25

Rule is disposed of accordingly.

¶26

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶27

DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

Sachin Y. Shetty v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Y. Shetty v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Blue Star Ltd.,Mumbai. Vs Ravin Cables Ltd., Mumbai.

Blue Star Ltd.,Mumbai. Vs Ravin Cables Ltd., Mumbai.

Teresa Rajan Nair, Mumbai. Vs 1. Vincent Fernandes, Thana.

M/S. Larsen and Toubro Limited Vs the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Quilon Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kamat Hotels (India) Ltd.

Quilon Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kamat Hotels (India) Ltd.