Disposed

Mr. Imtiyaz Yusuf Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC29 Oct 2012PIL/147/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PIL No. 147 of 2012 was disposed of by permission to the petitioner. The court allowed the withdrawal of the public interest litigation subject to liberty to file a separate individual petition. No substantive legal issue was adjudicated.

What did the court decide?

PIL disposed of as withdrawn; liberty to file independent petition in individual capacity.

Mr. Imtiyaz Yusuf Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary and Ors. — Bombay HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

¶1

34.pil.147.12.doc

¶2

jdk

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PIL NO. 147 OF 2012

¶4

Mr. Imtiyaz Yusuf Shaikh

¶5

..Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

State of Maharashtra and Ors.

¶8

..Respondents

¶9

Mr. Dilip Shukla and Santosh Pandey ABG and Associates for Petitioner Mr. A.I.Patel AGP for Respondent No.1 Mr. M.S.Lagu for Respondent No.4 Mr. Rajiv Narula i/b Jhangiani Narula and Associates for Respondent no.5

¶10

CORAM : D.D.SINHA AND SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J J.

¶11

DATE : OCTOBER 29, 2012.

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respective Respondents.

¶14

The counsel for the respondent no. 5 has raised preliminary objection for maintainability of the petition in view of some of the averments made in paragraph 23 of the petition which reads thus:

¶15

"The petitioner states that in the year of 2008 he wanted to sell his present flat in order to shift in bigger flat, but the said flat could not be sold because of the building not having occupation certificate from the

¶16

Pg 1 of 2

¶17

34.pil.147.12.doc

¶18

Municipal Corporation. The petitioner states that since 2008 the petitioner has been trying to know the fact of not having occupation certificate of his building, finally in the year of 2010 it came to his knowledge that builder has not handed over the tenement to government under section 20 of ULC Act, 1976 and also done unauthorized construction. The petitioner further approached the Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation and lodged complaint with the Commissioner and Town Planning Officer, but no action was taken against the Builder. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit-I collectively are the copies of the complaint/letters written to the Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation.”

¶19

The counsel for the petitioner, in the circumstances,

¶20

seeks permission to withdraw the present PIL with liberty to file independent petition in the individual capacity. In the circumstances, PIL is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.

¶21

[ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [ D.D.SINHA, J. ]

¶22

kandarkar

¶23

Pg 2 of 2

Mr. Imtiyaz Yusuf Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Imtiyaz Yusuf Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maharashtra Public Service Commission Vs State of Maharashtra

Jadavjee M. Shah Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mohan Marotrao Karemore Vs State of Maharashtra Thr Secty and Ors.

Shri Kishor Samrite Ex Mla Samajwadi Party Vs State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary Dept of Energy Mantralaya Mumbai

Lakhapatraj Mehta Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri S Jatinderpal Singh Uppal and Another Vs Smt. Leela Samson Chairperson (Mumbai) and Others

Suresh Marotrao Yeole Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Suresh Marotrao Yeole Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Kiran C. Shah

The Satate of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs Smt. Durgabai R. Mahadik and Ors.

Shri. Vikas Sadashiv Kulkarni Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Law and Judiciary Dept and Ors.

Bombay Environment Action Group and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. and Brihanmumbai Munciipal Corporation- Applicants

M/s. Sai Chayya Flour Mill Vs Mumbai Metropolitan Region and Anr.

Pradeep Gopal Shetye Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.