Disposed

Farukh Pavri v. the Collector of Raigad and Anr.

Bombay HC27 Feb 2013PIL/185/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petition, alleging establishment of a crematorium, was disposed of after Amicus Curiae reported the grievance was incorrect and the crematorium existed for a long time. The court also directed reimbursement of investigation costs.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Collector, Mumbai Suburban District to reimburse Rs. 5,000/- spent by the Amicus Curiae and her associates for site inspection.

Farukh Pavri Vs the Collector of Raigad and Anr. — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

PIL.185.2009.6.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 185 OF 2009

¶4

FARUKH PAVRI, MUMBAI	:-	PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE COLLECTOR OF RAIGAD
AND ANR.	:-	RESPONDENTS

¶5

Ms. Gayatri Singh, Amicus Curiae .

¶6

Mr. N. P. Deshpande, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶7

CORAM :- A.M.KHANWILKAR & A.P.BHANGALE,JJ.

¶8

DATED :- FEBRUARY 27, 2013

¶9

P.C. :-

¶10

This Letter Petition was registered as Public Interest Litigation. The Court appointed Mrs. Gayatri Singh as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court and also to inspect the site, so that, on the basis of hee report, the issue raised in the Letter Petition could be proceeded further. Pursuant to the said order, Mrs. Gayatri Singh, along with Stalin D. from Vanashakti and a law student Revati Desai, visited the site on 3^rd February, 2013. She has submitted her report indicating that the grievance made in the

¶11

Page 1 of 3

¶12

J.V.Salunke,PA

¶13

PIL.185.2009.6.doc

¶14

communication received by post is incorrect. On the other hand, on verifying the facts and visiting the site, it was noticed that the concerned crematorium is in existence for quite some time and not constructed in recent time, as is stated in the Letter Petition.

¶15

In view of this report, nothing more needs to be done in this Petition. The same is disposed of.

¶16

We place on record the statement made by the Learned Amicus Curiae that the sender of the letter in question Shri. Farukh Pavri is not residing at the place indicated in the communication. In other words, the letter seems to be product of some mischief and false complaint. Since the amount spent by the Learned Amicus Curiae and the two persons accompanying her; for the visit made on 3^rd February, 2013; to inspect the site, could have been recovered from the said Petitioner but, in the facts of the present case, we direct the Collector, Mumbai Suburban District to

¶17

reimburse the amount spent by the Learned Amicus Curiae quantified as Rs. 5,000/-, within four weeks.

¶18

Page 2 of 3

¶19

J.V.Salunke,PA

¶20

PIL.185.2009.6.doc

¶21

The Court expresses word of gratitude for the efforts

¶22

put in by the Learned Amicus Curiae and her two associates.

¶23

(A.P.BHANGALE,J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.)

¶24

Page 3 of 3

¶25

J.V.Salunke,PA

Farukh Pavri v. the Collector of Raigad and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Farukh Pavri v. the Collector of Raigad and Anr.

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

Shri. Kamalakar Madhusudan Ghate and Ors. Vs Pen Municipal Council, through Chief Executive Officer and Ors.

Ms. Medha Patkar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Samaratha Krupa Vikas Mandal and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Bharat Bhagwan Pawar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Ulhasnagar Muslim Community Vs Union of India and Ors.

Vishnu Vitthal Karampuri Vs 1. Solapur Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner and Ors.

Vishnu Vitthal Karampuri Vs 1. Solapur Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner and Ors.

Santosh Raosaheb Kakade and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shri. Kamalakar Madhusudan Ghate and Ors. Vs Pen Municipal Council, through Chief Executive Officer and Ors.

Ms. Medha Patkar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Samaratha Krupa Vikas Mandal and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kamlesh Kumar Srivastava Vs Union of India and Ors.

Deepak Laltaprasad Mishra and Ors. Vs Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Ulhasnagar Muslim Community Vs Union of India and Ors.