Disposed

Pukhraj Chunilal Bafna v. State of Maharashtra and 7 Ors.

Bombay HC2 Mar 2012WP/177/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a senior citizen with cardiac ailment, challenged the placement of barriers on specific roads due to travel inconvenience. The Court satisfied that the barriers were justified for security against past terrorist threats. While acknowledging the petitioner's specific circumstances, the Court dismissed the prayer for a general parking facility and clarified that any future facilities

What did the court decide?

Special parking facilities to be considered as an exception based on the petitioner's specific circumstances, not as a precedent.

Pukhraj Chunilal Bafna Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

WP.177.2012

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.177 OF 2012

¶5

Pukhraj Chunilal Bafna Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra and others Respondents

¶6

Mr.Ashish Mehta for petitioner.

¶7

Mr.D.A.Nalavade, Government Pleader with Anjali Helekar, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 7.

¶8

Mr.R.A.Dada, Sr.Advocate with Bhvin Maneck, Farid Karachiwala and Pllavi Smriti i/by Wadia Ghandhy & Co. for respondent no.8.

¶9

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND RANJIT MORE, J.

¶10

DATE : March 2, 2012

¶11

PC :

¶12

Mr.Dada, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Bombay Stock Exchange has placed on record the sketch showing location of Veena Chambers where the petitioner has his office and which is opposite to Bombay Stock Exchange. He also invited our attention to the fact that barriers are placed on Bombay Samachar Marg, Dalal Street and Ambalal Doshi Marg.

¶13

Having regard to the fact that an attempt was made in the past by the terrorists to blow-up the Bombay Stock Exchange building and

¶14

¶15

WP.177.2012

¶16

threat perception is persistent, we are satisfied that the respondent authorities are justified in placing the barriers on the above roads.

¶17

As regards difficulties being pointed out by the petitioner, who is a senior citizen and suffering from cardiac ailment, the respondents have shown their willingness to extend appropriate facilities to the petitioner without allowing the petitioner to park his vehicle within the barricaded area.

¶18

The sketch produced by Bombay Stock Exchange is taken on record and marked "X" for identification.

¶19

The petition is accordingly disposed of. It is clarified that the facilities even if extended to the petitioner, shall not be treated as precedent and the respondents are ready to consider extending such facilities only because the petitioner is a senior citizen and suffering from cardiac ailment and owns the entire building known as Veena Chambers.

(CHIEF JUSTICE)

(RANJIT MORE, J.)

M.S.Thatte

2 of 2

Pukhraj Chunilal Bafna v. State of Maharashtra and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pukhraj Chunilal Bafna v. State of Maharashtra and 7 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

Telang Road Residents Association and 12 Ors., Vs State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

The Committee for Rights to Housing and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 10 Others

Kantibhai Jitmal Jain Vs Majaj Mukhtar Dolare and Ors.

Neena Sunil Patel and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mumbai Taximen Sangathan and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dhiren Dungarshi Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra and 10 Ors.