Anil R. Chaudhari and 17 Ors. v. Union of India through the General Manager and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC4 Dec 2013WP/58/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an order vacating interim relief regarding dilapidated railway quarters. The High Court reviewed safety reports confirming structural collapse risks and affirmed the Tribunal's direction to vacate, while clarifying that interim protection against penal rent remains valid pending the main application's disposal.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed. The interim order protecting Petitioners from penal rent recovery remains effective until the hearing and final disposal of the Original Application.

Anil R. Chaudhari and 17 Ors. Vs Union of India… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

wpl 3083.13

¶2

dss

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION (L) NO.3083 OF 2013

¶5

Anil R. Chaudhari and ors. ... Petitioners

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Union of India & ors. ... Respondents

¶8

¶9

Mr. Ramesh Ramamurthy, for the Petitioners.

¶10

Mr. R.V. Desai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Chetan Agrawal for the Respondents.

¶11

¶12

CORAM : V. M. KANADE, AND M. S. SONAK, JJ.

¶13

DATE : DECEMBER 04, 2013 P. C.

¶14

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents.

¶15

The Petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench on 8^th October 2013, whereby the Tribunal was pleased to vacate the interim order, which was granted in favour of the Petitioners on 23^rd February 2013. The Petitioners submit that the interim order was vacated in view of the report submitted by the Respondents, which mentions that the buildings in which the Petitioners are residing are in totally dilapidated condition and are likely to collapse at any moment. Learned counsel

¶16

1 / 3

¶17

wpl 3083.13

¶18

appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submits that the main original application has been kept for hearing on 10^th December 2013. He submitted that the interim order was in force from 23^rd February 2013 and no prejudice will be caused to the Respondents, if the Petitioners are allowed to stay in said buildings.

¶19

We have perused the impugned order. The Tribunal has, after taking into consideration the report submitted by the three Member committee consisting of two Chief Engineers and Additional Divisional Rail Manager (T), prima-facie was satisfied that the recommendation made by the Building Committee appears to be reasonable, particularly, taking into consideration the safety of the occupants. We have perused the said report. The report indicates that the buildings were constructed in the year 1971 and they are 80 to 90 years old. The report also indicates that all the buildings are showing signs of severe distress in primary structural components such as columns and beams. The columns are bulging out and cracking, beams are splitting, reinforcement is exposed due to cracks in structural member and is badly corroded.

¶20

The said report has been given by two Chief Engineers and Additional Divisional Rail Manager. From the report, it is apparent that the said buildings are unsafe and are likely to collapse at any moment. The Respondents have also offered temporary alternate accommodations to the Petitioners. The Tribunal has also observed

¶21

2 / 3

¶22

wpl 3083.13

¶23

that the main contention raised by the Petitioners as regards entitlement for Type-IV quarter shall be considered in the original application. So far as recovery of penal rent is concerned, the interim order which has been granted by the Tribunal is not vacated and the Railway Authorities are therefore precluded from recovering the penal rent from the Petitioners. We clarify that all the contentions raised by the Petitioners and the Respondents are kept open. The Respondents shall not recover the penal rent till the hearing and final disposal of the Original Application.

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that as per the report given by the Respondents 'transit accommodation' is 99% complete and is not fully ready for occupation. It is submitted that, therefore, one month's time may be given to the Petitioners to vacate the premises. It is not possible for us to accept the said contention as a direction has been given by the Tribunal to the Petitioners to vacate the premises. We are not inclined to interfere with the said direction.

¶25

With these directions, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶26

Dinesh

¶27

3 / 3

Anil R. Chaudhari and 17 Ors. v. Union of India through the General Manager and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil R. Chaudhari and 17 Ors. v. Union of India through the General Manager and 3 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

The State vs.S.R.Wagh Vs Sahebrao Ramchandra Wagh

S. R. Wagh Vs the Honourable the Chief Justice, High Court of Judicature at Bombay and Ors.

Indur Kartar Chhugani Vs Punjab National Bank and Ors.

The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks Vs Girdharlal B.Parmar

Jt.Action Forum of West.Railway and Central Railway Motormen and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Nanaware Pradip Bansi Vs M.P.S.C. and Ors.