Disposed

Nirajan Hiranandani v. Kamlakar Motiram Satve and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Oct 2012CAI/168/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposed of a civil application filed by an applicant to obtain directions for the expeditious consideration of his applications submitted to various authorities including MMRDA, BMC, and SEIAA to comply with a prior judgment directing construction.

What did the court decide?

Directions to MMRDA, BMC, SEIAA authorities to consider applicant's proposals for construction and tree removal/transplantation within two months.

Nirajan Hiranandani Vs Kamlakar Motiram Satve… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2012)

kambli

CA(St)No.27354.12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CIVIL APPLICATION (ST) NO.27354 OF 2012 IN

¶7

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.131 OF 2008

¶8

Niranjan Hiranandani ...Applicant (orig.Respondent No.10) In the matter between: Kamlakar Motiram Satve & anr. ...Petitioners v/s. The State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Respondents And State Environment Impact Assessment Authority ...Respondent (Third party) WITH PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.91 OF 2008 Rajendra Thacker .... Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .... Respondents WITH PUBLLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.21 OF 2010 Medha Patkar ... Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .... Respondents ...

¶9

Ms.Rumana Bahadi i/bMs. Sumedha Rao for Petitioner in PIL No.91 of 2008.

¶10

Mr. Kiran Bhalerao for Petitioner in PIL No.21 of 2010. Mr.D.D.Madon, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Chetan Kapadia i/b Doijode Associates for applicant. Mr.A.I.Patel, AGP for State. Mrs.S.M.Modle for BMC. Mr.Rakesh Patil i/b Mr.S.G.Deshmukh for petitioners in PIL No.131 of 2008.

¶11

Ms.Lalita Panchakshari i/b Ms.Kiran Bagalia for MMRDA.

1 Of 4

kambli

CA(St)No.27354.12

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & N.M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 4 October 2012

¶17

P.C.

¶18

By judgment dated 22 February 2012 read with subsequent orders dated 19 April 2012 and 18 June 2012 in PIL No.131 of 2008, this Court had directed the applicant to construct built up area 1,27,260 sq.meters of flats admeasuring 40/80 sq.meters each.

¶19

In this application, the applicant has prayed for directions to respondent-authorities for expeditious consideration of its applications, as without the NOC/approval granted by the respondent-authorities the applicant will not be able to comply with the directions given by this Court.

¶20

As far as MMRDA is concerned, the applicant had submitted the application to MMRDA for its permission under the triparte agreement on 17 July 2012.

¶21

In the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct respondent No.3-MMRDA to consider and decide the applicant's application dated 17 July 2012 as expeditiously as possible and in any case within two months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶22

As far as Mumbai Municipal Corporation is concerned, the applicant had made an application on 27 July 2012 for permission for removal and transplantation of trees and had also submitted proposed building plans on 27 & 30 July 2012. The applicant also responded to

2 Of 4

kambli

CA(St)No.27354.12

the letter dated 14 August 2012 of the Superintendent of Gardens & Tree Officer by reply dated 27 August 2012 giving reasons for the need to remove trees and also made the following statement:-

¶28

“Please also note that we have already planted trees on the surrounding hilly area and it will be our endeavour to transplant and plant maximum number of trees on the Open Space available in Sector V as also in and around Powai Area Development Scheme from environment point of view.

¶29

We have, therefore, to request you to please grant your NOC to our proposal at the earliest.”

¶30

In the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the Superintendent of Gardens & Tree Officer to consider the applicant's proposal for removal/transplantating of trees as expeditiously as possible and in any case within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

¶31

The applicant has made an application to the High Rise Committee of the Municipal Corporation on 12 September 2012. The High Rise Committee shall consider the applicant's application as expeditiously as possible and in any case by 31 December 2012.

¶32

As far as State Environment Impact Assessment Authority is concerned, the applicant submitted its application 8 August 2012. We direct respondent No.11- State Environment Impact Assessment Authority to consider and decide the application of the applicant as expeditiously as possible and in any case by 31 December 2012.

3 Of 4

CA(St)No.27354.12

kambli

It is clarified that in case any of the respondent-authorities find any deficiencies or shortcomings in the applicant's proposals or annextures to the applications, the concerned authority shall invite the attention of the applicant at the earliest, so that the applicant can remove those deficiencies/shortcomings.

¶38

The application is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid directions.

¶39

PIL No.91 of 2008 to be listed on 10 January 2013.

¶40

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶41

(N.M. JAMDAR, J.)

¶42

4 Of 4

Nirajan Hiranandani v. Kamlakar Motiram Satve and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirajan Hiranandani v. Kamlakar Motiram Satve and 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

Krishnakumar Vallabhdas Kapadia and 2 Ors.., Vs Dinesh Vallabhadas Kapadia and 2 Ors.

Ashok Madhavrao Pradhan Vs Meena Moreshwar Pradhan and 9 Ors.

Sharvan Kumar B.Pandey Vs Shilpa Stock Broker Pvt.Ltd.

Anil G. Gidwani Vs Chief Justice Mumbai High Court

Vijaykumar Ramrao Dhoke Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ashok Khetshi Hariya Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.