Disposed

Tulsi Karsan Padiyar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC18 Mar 2010WP/533/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction to High Powered Committee to allot a number and conduct hearing for slum rehabilitation application. Court directed Respondent No.2 to accept fresh copy, allot number, provide hearing opportunity, and dispose expeditiously by 30th April 2010.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.2 directed to take fresh application copy on record, allot number, give hearing opportunity, and dispose by 30th April 2010.

Tulsi Karsan Padiyar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

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

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.533 OF 2010

¶3

Tulsi Karsan Padiyar .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents

¶4

Mr. Omar Khaiyam Shaikh for Petitioner Mr. J. S. Saluja AGP for Respondent No.1 Mr. V. D. Patil for Respondent No.2

¶5

CORAM : J. N. PATEL &

¶6

A.P. BHANGALE, JJ DATE : 18^th MARCH, 2010.

¶7

P.C. :

¶8

Heard.

¶9

The Petitioner had approached Respondent No.2 – High Powered Committee, constituted by the State Government in the matter of issuance of letter of intent to the developer regarding slum rehabilitation scheme / project. The Petitioner made grievance that despite follow up, Respondent No.2 has not taken up the Application No.376 of 2008 for hearing. That application was withdrawn by the Petitioner on 3^rd November 2009, with liberty to file a fresh application. Accordingly, a fresh application was filed on

¶10

8^th January 2010 on behalf of the persons who are entitled or eligible for rehabilitation. The said application was not taken up for hearing, hence this Petition has been filed seeking the direction of the court to Respondent No.2 to allot number to the application and

¶11

to conduct hearing of the application.

¶12

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that no hearing has been conducted by Respondent No.2 and no opportunity of hearing was given despite directions dated 18^th December 2008 in Notice of Motion No.126 of 2008 in Writ Petition No.1326 of 2007. Under these circumstances, the Petitioner is required to file this Petition.

¶13

The Learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner states that the number to the application is not given as probably the application was misplaced by the Respondent’s office. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that he will furnish fresh copy of the application to the Respondents. Upon receiving fresh copy of the application, we direct Respondent No.2 to take same copy on record and number the application and then give opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and dispose of the Application in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible on or before 30^th April 2010, subject to co-operation by the parties.

¶14

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶15

( J. N. Patel, J)

¶16

(A.P. BHANGALE, J)

Tulsi Karsan Padiyar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tulsi Karsan Padiyar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Om Shri Sai Developers Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Sudhir Chamanlal Narula Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Accord Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Maharashtra State Board of Waks and 5 Ors.

Anjana Kshetry and 2 Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Govind a. Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

The Sri Ganapathi Mills Company Limited Vs Oriental Bank of Commerce Nd Anr.