Remanded

Smt. Kanchan Rathod v. the Slum Rehabilitation Authority and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC21 Apr 2010WP/96/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court holding that the petitioner was denied a hearing opportunity by the High Power Committee before eviction order was passed, set aside the order to preserve natural justice and directed the matter be remanded.

What did the court decide?

Eviction order set aside and matter remanded to High Power Committee to give opportunity of hearing and consider pending appeal.

Smt. Kanchan Rathod Vs the Slum Rehabilitation Authority and… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 96 OF 2010

¶5

Kanchan Rathod .. Petitioner. Vs. The Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors. .. Respondents.

¶6

Mr. Satyam Acharya for the petitioner. Mr. B. Unnikrishnan for Respondent No. 2. Mr. D.A. Nalawade, Govt. Pleader, for respondent nos. 3 & 4.

¶7

CORAM : J. N. PATEL &

¶8

A.P. BHANGALE, JJ DATE : 21ST APRIL, 2010.

P.C. :

Heard.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the

¶13

parties.

¶14

The petitioner has made a grievance that the High Power Committee which passed the order regarding eviction of the petitioner from the premises on the application of respondent no.2 did not give any opportunity of hearing to represent her case before the High Power Committee but proceeded to pass the order against the petitioner although the decision of the Competent Authority is challenged and Appeal No. 714 of 2009 is pending before the Commissioner, Konkan Division.

¶15

We have seen the documents in the petition as well as we have called for records. The learned Government Pleader states that the petitioner was not given notice by the High Power Committee before arriving at the decision of eviction against her on 18.9.2009 while passing order on Application No. 846 of 2009. That being so, the petitioner was deprived of an opportunity of hearing and principles of natural justice were not followed. For these reasons, we set aside the impugned order passed by the High Power Committee on 18.9.2009, remand the matter

¶16

¶17

back to the High Power Committee and direct the High Power Committee to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as also to bear in mind the pendency of appeal No. 714 of 2009 before arriving at final decision after hearing the parties concerned.

¶18

Rule is made absolute accordingly.

¶19

The petitioner to approach the High Power Committee

¶20

within two weeks.

¶21

Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶22

( J. N. Patel, J)

¶23

(A.P. BHANGALE, J)

Smt. Kanchan Rathod v. the Slum Rehabilitation Authority and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kanchan Rathod v. the Slum Rehabilitation Authority and 3 Ors.

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

Manisha Sanjay Waskar Vs Anil @ Bajirao Balaso Dhavan(Panari) and Ors.

Kisan Mehta and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rashtriya Chemical Fertilizers Limited and Anr. Vs J.S. Ocean Liner Pte. Ltd. and 4 Ors.

Rajesh Vijendra Sharma Vs the Mumbai Municipal Corporation and 12 Ors.

Petroleum Products Dealers and Manufacturers Association Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sanjay Krishnarao Taksande Vs Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. and 3 Ors.