Allowed

Avinash Yashwant Shaligram and Ors. v. Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Jul 2013CAW/1010/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order recalls an impugned order dismissing a writ petition for want of prosecution due to the reasons stated in the application. The Court allows the application and restores the writ petition, directing the Municipal Corporation to consider representations and redevelopment proposals on merits within specific time limits.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is restored to file. The Corporations is directed to decide the petitioners' representation and redevelopment proposal on merits within three months.

Avinash Yashwant Shaligram and Ors. Vs Pune… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2013)

CAW1010.13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1010 OF 2013

¶7

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.1531 OF 2002

¶9

Mr.Avinash Yashwant Shaligram and Ors. ....Applicants/Petitioners V/s.

¶10

Pune Municipal Corporation & Ors.

¶11

....Respondents

¶12

Mr.Tejas Dande for the applicants/petitioners.

¶13

Mr.Abhijeet Kulkarni for the respondent no.1. Mrs.M.P.Thakur AGP for respondent no.2. Mr.Sudhir Hardikar for respondent nos.3(a) to 4(c).

¶14

CORAM : V.M.KANADE & K.R.SHRIRAM,JJ

¶15

DATE : 23rd July, 2013.

¶16

P.C. :-

¶17

1 Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶18

2 For the reasons stated in the application, the order dated

¶19

16.1.2012 dismissing the petition for want of prosecution is re-called.

¶20

Civil Application is allowed. Writ Petition is restored to file.

¶21

WRIT PETITION NO.1531 OF 2002

¶22

1 By this petition filed under Article-226 of the Constitution

¶23

of India, the petitioners are seeking appropriate writ, order or

¶24

2 CAW1010.13

¶25

direction directing the respondents to consider their representation in respect of the alleged un-authorised structure erected by respondent nos.3 & 4 as expeditiously as possible. They are also seeking a further direction directing respondent no.1 to consider the proposal of development of the property of the petitioners on merits and in accordance with law. These are the only reliefs claimed by the petitioners. In our view, petition can be conveniently disposed of by passing the following order :-

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The petitioners to file fresh application/representation to respondent no.1 within four weeks from today. Upon such representation being filed, the Corporation shall decide the same on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and in any case within three months. The petitioners shall serve copy of the representation on respondent nos.3 & 4 within two weeks after filing the representation. The Corporation shall after hearing the petitioners and respondent nos.3 & 4 decide the said representation on merits and in accordance with law ;

¶28

The petitioners shall file a fresh proposal for re-development to the respondent no.1. The said proposal shall also be considered on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible ;

¶29

3 CAW1010.13

¶30

1. With these directions, the petition is disposed of. It is clarified

¶31

that it will be open for the Corporation to decide both the proposal

¶32

simultaneously.

¶33

(K.R.SHRIRAM,J)

¶34

(V.M.KANADE,J)

Avinash Yashwant Shaligram and Ors. v. Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avinash Yashwant Shaligram and Ors. v. Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Abhishek Construction, through Partner, Gururaj Rachayya Charantimath Vs State of Maharashtra, through Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Shri. Shakheel Shukat Jamadar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Department of Forest and Revenue and Ors.

Shri. Narayan Rama Shegal Vs State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Balaji Mahila Shikshan Prasar and Samaj Kalyan Sanstha, through President, Mrs. Snehal v. Pawar Vs the Commissioner, Mira-Bhayander Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Shri. Kundansing Pandit Thoke Vs President and Upper District Collector Divisional Caste Verification Committee and Ors.

Shri. Anand Dagadu Khandekar Vs State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department and Ors.