Allowed

Nenshi Monji and 4 Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC12 Sept 2012APP/400/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court allowed the impleadment of the Chief Executive Officer of SRA, the Collector of Mumbai City, and the Superintendent of City Survey and Land Records in contempt proceedings, setting aside the single judge's order that rejected their inclusion.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting the prayer for impleadment of the Chief Executive Officer of SRA, the Collector of Mumbai City, and the Superintendent of City Survey and Land Records was set aside, and t

Nenshi Monji and 4 Ors. Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 of 3 APP.400.2012

¶2

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

¶3

APPEAL NO.400 OF 2012

¶4

¶5

CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.65 OF 2012 IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO.14 OF 2012 IN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.1489 OF 2008

¶7

Nanshi Monji and others Appellants

¶8

versus

¶9

The State of Maharashtra and others Respondents

¶10

Mr.Virendra Tulzapurkar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Shyam Mehta, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Cyrus Ardeshir and Mr.Sachin Kudalkar i/by M/s.Madekar & Co. for Appellants in Appeal No.400 of 2012 and for Petitioners in Writ Petition No.1489 of 2008.

¶11

Mr.G.W.Mattos, AGP for Respondents 1 to 4.

¶12

Mr.Anil Anturkar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Akshay P. Jadhav for Respondent no.9 in Appeal No.400 of 2012 and for Respondent no.7 in Writ Petition No.1489 of 2008.

¶13

Mr.G.D.Utangale with Mr.B.V.Phadnis i/by Utangale & Co. for Respondent no.6.

¶14

CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND A.A.SAYED, JJ.

¶15

DATE : 12 September 2012

¶16

PC :

¶17

Admit.

¶18

2 of 3 APP.400.2012

¶19

This appeal arises from an order of a learned Single Judge dated 20 April 2012 in a Chamber Summons for the impleadment of certain parties to a contempt petition.

¶20

In the original Writ Petition¹ , an order of status-quo was passed by a Division Bench on 30 July 2008. The challenge in the writ petition is to the constitutional validity of the provisions of Sections 14 and 17 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (the Act’) and to acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act. In the contempt proceedings it has been alleged that there was a breach of the order of status-quo passed by the Division Bench on 30 July 2008. The parties who were proposed to be added to the contempt proceedings included, inter alia, the Chief Executive Officer of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, the then Collector of Mumbai City, the Superintendent of the City Survey and Land Records and the Developer at whose instance a Letter of Intent (the LOI’) was issued. The learned Single Judge declined to accede to the prayer for the impleadment of the Chief Executive Officer of SRA, the Collector of Mumbai City and the Superintendent of City Survey and Land Records. However, the Developer has been impleaded as a party.

¶21

On behalf of the Appellants it has been submitted that though the Chief Executive Officer of SRA, the Collector of Mumbai and the Superintendent of City Survey and Land Records were not parties to the original proceedings, the contention of the Appellants is that despite knowledge of the order of status-quo dated 30 July 2008, the Chief Executive Officer of SRA issued an LOI on 23 September 2010 and the property card was mutated in the name of the government on 16 August 1 Writ Petition No.1489 of 2008

¶22

3 of 3 APP.400.2012

¶23

Whether the authorities of SRA and of the State Government had knowledge or otherwise, would not fall for determination at the present stage. However, there was no reason why the request for impleadment should not be allowed keeping open all the rights and contentions including the defenses on merits.

¶24

In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 20 April 2012 to the extent to which it rejects the prayer for impleadment of the Chief Executive Officer of SRA, the Collector of Mumbai City and the Superintendent of City Survey and Land Records. We allow the impleadment of the aforesaid three authorities, more particularly described in the schedule to the Chamber Summons. However, we clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the contempt proceedings.

¶25

The appeal shall stand disposed of in these terms. The amendment shall be carried out within a period of one week from today. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶26

(DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.)

¶27

(A.A.SAYED, J.)

¶28

MST

Nenshi Monji and 4 Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nenshi Monji and 4 Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and 4 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

Kai. Vasantrao Naik Samajik Shaikshanik Krida Va Bahuddeshiya Sanstha, Akkalkot, Solapur Vs the Director, Vjnt, Obc and Special Backward Communities Welfare and Ors.

Kai. Vasantrao Naik Samajik Shaikshanik Krida Va Bahuddeshiya Sanstha, Akkalkot, Solapur Vs the Director, Vjnt, Obc and Special Backward Communities Welfare and Ors.

Dattajirao Khanwilkar Eduation Trust, through Chairman Shri. Amar Madhukar Warde Vs Education Officer (Primary), Raigad Zilla Parishad, Alibaug and Ors.

Amar Iron Udyog Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai

Vikas Shikshan Sanstha, through President and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, School Education Dept and Ors.

Ms. Sandhya Laxman Ghosalkar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, School Education Dept and Ors.