Partly allowed

Vishwanath Pratap Mahendra Pratap Singh v. the Chief Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC6 Feb 2012WP/2310/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the High Power Committee's order denying tenement eligibility and remanded the matter for a fresh decision after allowing the petitioner an opportunity to file additional documents proving his inclusion in Annexure-II. The relief directs the respondent to act within eight weeks. The appeal was heard finally by consent of parties.

What did the court decide?

The order of the High Power Committee dated 16/7/2011 is set aside. The matter is remanded for a fresh decision within eight weeks after allowing the petitioner to file additional documents. The petit

Vishwanath Pratap Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs the Chief… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2012)

oswp-2310-11

pdp

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 2310 OF 2011

¶6

Vishwanath Pratap Mahendra Pratap Singh

¶7

.. Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Chief Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority and ors. .. Respondents

¶10

Mr. Mandar Limaye a/w Mr. S.M. Suryavanshi for petitioner. Mr. Vijay Patil for respondent no.1. Mr. N. B. Shukla for respondent nos.3 and 4.

¶11

CORAM: S. A. BOBDE & R. D. DHANUKA, JJ.

¶12

FEBRUARY 06, 2012.

¶13

P.C.

¶14

Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr. Patil waives service for

¶15

respondent no.1 and Mr. Shukla waives service for respondent nos.3 and 4.

¶16

Heard finally by consent of parties.

¶17

The only contention of the petitioner is that the reason given

¶18

¶19

oswp-2310-11

¶20

by the High Power Committee for denying eligibility to the petitioner for tenement is that the petitioner’s name does not appear in Annexure-II. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s name appears in Annexure-II at Serial No. 865. Apparently, this information was not available with the petitioner when the High Power Committee passed the order. However, the petitioner submits that the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies had written to the Chairman of the Co-operative Society on 9/4/2010 that the petitioner is eligible. It seems that this document has not been considered by the High Power Committee. Having regard to the overall circumstances, we considered it appropriate to set aside the order of the High Power Committee and remand the matter to the said Committee for fresh decision in accordance with law, after affording the petitioner an opportunity to file an additional documents.

¶21

Hence, we set aside the impugned order dated 16/7/2011 and remand the matter to the High Power Committee for fresh decision in accordance with law, after affording the petitioner an opportunity to file an additional documents. All issues left open. The High Power Committee shall pass fresh order within a period of eight weeks from the date the petitioner appeared before it. The petitioner is directed to appear before the

¶22

¶23

oswp-2310-11

¶24

High Power Committee on 18/2/2012.

¶25

4. Rule made absolute in above terms.

¶26

(R. D. DHANUKA,J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)

Vishwanath Pratap Mahendra Pratap Singh v. the Chief Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishwanath Pratap Mahendra Pratap Singh v. the Chief Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority 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

Shraddha Bajirao Lande Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Justice Dept and Ors.

M/s. Green Oak Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Police and Ors.

Ashok Kumar Shukla and Ors. Vs Municipal Corpn. for Greater Mumbai and Ors.

Mota Mandir Trust and 5 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Navneet Hargovinddas Rana and 20 Ors. Vs Administrative Officer (Estate) Western Suburbs, Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika and 4 Ors.

Shubhangi Nandkumar Deshpande Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.