Dismissed

Nikhil Suresh Palkar and Others v. Shri Prithviraj Chavan and Others

Bombay HC1 Sept 2014CP/461/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a contempt petition alleging breach of directions regarding slum rehabilitation proposals in Pune. It held the petition was misconceived as the State Government faced no prejudice and was not required to decide within a specific timeframe.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition dismissed; directions for State Government to take decision on pending proposals issued.

Nikhil Suresh Palkar and Others Vs Shri Prithviraj Chavan… — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1 of 3 CP.461.2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.461 OF 2014

¶4

Nikhil Suresh Palkar and others Petitioners versus Prithviraj Chavan and others Respondents

¶5

Mr.Drupad S. Patil for Petitioners in Contempt Petition. Mr.A.I.Patel, AGP for Respondents State.

¶6

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND M.S.SONAK, J.

¶7

DATE : 1 September 2014

¶8

PC :

¶9

The petition has been filed for initiating proceedungs under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and under Article 215 of the Constitution of India for alleged breach of the directions given by this court dated 30 January 2014, 10 March 2014 and 1 July 2014 in PIL No.97 of 2013.

¶10

It is necessary to note that as far as orders dated 30 January 2014 and 10 March 2014 are concerned, they were ad interim orders requiring the State Government to take decision on the proposals sent by the Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority of Pune-Pimpri Chinchwad (`CEO-SRA, Pune'). Those

¶11

2 of 3 CP.461.2014

¶12

directions were given in view of the fact that CEO-SRA, Pune had stayed all SRA projects of Pune-Pimpri Chinchwad on public lands pending clear instructions from the State Government on the proposals sent by the CEO-SRA, Pune-Pimpri Chinchwad in the year 2011. However, by final order dated 1 July 2014 disposing of the PIL and a cognet writ petition, we had set aside the instructions dated 12 April 2011 of the CEO-SRA Pune-Pimpri Chinchwad areas and we also directed that CEO-SRA, Pune-Pimpri Chinchwad to take decision on the pending proposals on and from 1 August 2014 on the basis of such regulations, which are applicable on the date of consideration of the proposals to slum rehabilitation projects in PunePimpri Chinchwad area.

¶13

In view of the above directions, there is no prejudice to any party on account of State Government not taking any decision on proposals sent by CEO-SRA for Pune-Pimpri Chinchwad area. Merely because we had recorded a statement of the learned AGP that the proposals sent by CEO-SRA, Pune-Pimpri Chinchwad were under consideration of the State Government at the higher level and the decision was expected to be taken thereon at the earliest, does not furnish any cause of action to the PIL Petitioner or the Petitioner in the companion writ petition, to require the State Government to take a decision on the proposals sent by the CEO-SRA, Pune-Pimpri Chinchwad area within any particular time frame.

¶14

The contempt petition is, therefore, misconceived and dismissed accordingly.

¶15

3 of 3 CP.461.2014

¶16

The CEO-SRA, Pune-Pimpri Chinchwad shall take appropriate decision on the pending proposals.

¶17

(CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶18

(M.S.SONAK, J.)

¶19

MST

Nikhil Suresh Palkar and Others v. Shri Prithviraj Chavan and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nikhil Suresh Palkar and Others v. Shri Prithviraj Chavan and Others

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

Bombay Diocesan Trust Assn. Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs Rev. Dr. P. B. Amolik and Ors.

Mrs. Pooja Udya Aggarwal Vs Mr. Uday Nandlal Aggarwal and Anr.

Indiraraje Bhairavsinh Ghorpade Vs the Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Dy. Controller of Stamps and Ors.

Smt. Shamsunissa M. Ismail Vs the Secretary / Chairman, Chebur Shreyas Co-Op. Soc Ltd. and Ors.

Gail (India) Ltd. Vs Prakash D Mane

Deepak Natwarlal Parekh Vs Tejas Natwarlal Parekh