Disposed

Dattatraya Sudhakar Kawathekar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Oct 2012PIL/138/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Public Interest Litigation challenging the unilateral installation of barricades on public roads without notice. The court remanded the matter to the Collector for a post facto hearing to determine the imperativeness and continuation of the installation.

What did the court decide?

Direction that the Collector, Solapur hear the parties on the issue of continuing the barricades within three months.

Dattatraya Sudhakar Kawathekar and Ors… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

PIL.138.2008.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 138 OF 2008

¶4

Dattatraya Sudhakar Kawathekar & Ors. : Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. : Respondents

¶5

Mr. Uday Warunjikar, with Mr. Ajay Joshi, for the Petitioner. Mr. Nitin Deshpande, AGP, for Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5. Mr. Sarang Aradhye, for Respondent No. 4.

¶6

CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR & SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ.

¶7

DATED:OCTOBER 5, 2012

¶8

P.C.:

¶9

The grievance made in this Petition is about unilateral

¶10

action taken by the Authorities in installing barricades on public road. No public notice in this behalf was given, much less to the persons who were likely to be affected by the said act.

¶11

In response to this Petition, the Municipal Council has taken a stand that it is not responsible for the installation of the barricades. The stand of the Police Authorities, however, appears

Page 1 of 3

J.V.Salunke,PA

PIL.138.2008.doc

to be that the barricades have been installed by the Municipal Council on their instructions, for security reasons. As aforesaid, the Municipal Council has disowned having installed the barricades at the stated location.

¶16

Instead of getting embroiled into this controversy, we deem it appropriate to relegate the parties before the Collector, who would provide them hearing including on the issue of imperativeness of the arrangement already put in place. This hearing would be in the nature of post facto hearing, which the Petitioners have agreed to resort to.

¶17

In the circumstances, we dispose of this Petition with a hope that the Collector, Solapur shall hear the Petitioners or any other interested persons and concerned Authorities, in relation to the issue of continuing the arrangement of the barricades already installed on the public road, at the stated place referred to in the Petition. The Collector may take appropriate decision in the matter, as may be advised, within three months from today.

Page 2 of 3

J.V.Salunke,PA

PIL.138.2008.doc

The parties appearing in the present Petition have assured through respective Counsel to extend full cooperation to the Collector in early resolution of the issue. We appreciate the stand taken by the private parties in trying to find out solution to the problem instead of perusing the legal issue raised in the Petition.

¶22

6) Petition disposed of on the above terms.

¶23

(SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.)

¶24

Page 3 of 3

¶25

J.V.Salunke,PA

Dattatraya Sudhakar Kawathekar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dattatraya Sudhakar Kawathekar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Anil G. Gidwani Vs Chief Justice Mumbai High Court

Shri. Sunil Kumar Bavdhankar Vs Shri. Kashinath Vitthal Sodmise and Ors.

Aadhar Mahila Vikas Sanstha Vs All India Council for Technical Education (Aicte) and Ors.

G.Mahesh Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Anil N.Bugde Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri.Satishkumar B.Mishra Vs General Manager,Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.

Janhit Manch and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Aba Saheb Vithoba More and Ors. Vs Subhash Mahadeo Sondkar and Ors.

Shri. Sunil Kumar Bavdhankar Vs Shri. Kashinath Vitthal Sodmise and Ors.

Anil Ganpatrao Gujar Vs Food Corporation of India, through General Manager and Ors.

Aadhar Mahila Vikas Sanstha Vs All India Council for Technical Education (Aicte) and Ors.

Kolhapur (Ujlaiwadi) Vimantal Prakalp Grast Shetkari Mandal Vs the Collector, Kolhapur and Ors.

Kishor Madhukarrao Kende and Anr. Vs City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd.

Kolhapur (Ujlaiwadi) Vimantal Prakalp Grast Shetkari Mandal Vs the Collector, Kolhapur and Ors.