Petitioner challenged allotment of one rehabilitation room instead of two and sought a stay against demolition. Court held alternative remedy existed but granted interim direction for two transit accommodations pending appeal on merits.
Direction to allot petitioner two transit accommodations without prejudice to rights, pending appeal filing.
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
WPL1786-25.10
PNP
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (LODG.) NO.1786 OF 2010
Abdulla Akbarali Lakhani
..Petitioner.
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents.
....
Mr. J.A. Udaipuri i/b M/s.Udaipuri & Co. for the Petitioner.
Mr. Milind More, AGP for Respondent No.1.
Mr. V.M. Parshurami for Respondent No.2. – Ms. Geeta Joglekar for Respondent No.3 BMC.
Mr. Kevick Setalvad i/b Mulla & Mulla for Respondents 4 and 5.
.....
CORAM :MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & . DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J 25 October 2010.
P.C.:
1. In this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the
Petitioner challenges the decision of the Executive Engineer of Respondent No.2 - Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board
in so far as the said officer has provided that the petitioner will be
2
WPL1786-25.10
PNP
entitled to only one rehabilitation accommodation in lieu of two rooms which are presently being occupied by the petitioner and his family members.
submits that prosecuting the above remedies would take some time and if no stay is granted in the intervening period, the petitioner’s premises will be demolished and the petitioner will be offered only one transit accommodation.
3
WPL1786-25.10
PNP
the controversy, we are of the view that the interests of justice will be served, if the respondents are directed to allot the petitioner two transit accommodations, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.
4
WPL1786-25.10
PNP
the appeal. It is clarified that the above direction is given without
going into the merits of the controversy sought to be raised in the Petition. The Petition accordingly stands disposed of.
CHIEF JUSTICE
(DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petition due to the availability of alternative remedy should be entertained.
Whether interim directions to allot two transit accommodations can be made without prejudice to the rights of parties.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Abdulla Akbarali Lakhani
The State of Maharashtra
Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board
BMC
MOHIT S. SHAH
DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
