Disposed

Ashok Bajirao Khade and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Urban Development and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Jul 2014PIL/113/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, in a PIL regarding the non-implementation of a 2007 proclamation for converting a revenue village into a Municipal Council, recorded a communication from the State Government indicating delays due to objections. The Court directed the State Government to take a final decision by 31st October 2014 without adjudicating on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed the State Government to take a final decision on the conversion proposal and communicate it to the petitioners by 31st October 2014.

Ashok Bajirao Khade and Anr. Vs State of… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2014)

ash

pil-113.14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.113 OF 2014

¶6

Ashok Bajirao Khade and Another. .. Petitioners Vs State of Maharashtra and Others. .. Respondents

¶7

Shri D.V. Sutar for the Petitioners. Shri V.P. Malvankar, AGP “” Panel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶8

CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ DATED : 11TH JULY 2014

¶9

P.C.

¶10

. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the learned AGP for first and second Respondents.

¶11

The grievance of the Petitioners is that on the basis of the proclamation dated 23^rd July 2007, no decision has been taken by the State Government. By the said proclamation, objections and suggestions were invited for conversion of the revenue village of Hupari and surrounding areas within the limits of village Hatkalangane, District Kolhapur into a Municipal Council.

¶12

The learned AGP has placed on record a communication dated 10^th July 2014 addressed by the State Government to the Government Pleader, High Court (Appellate Side), Mumbai. The said communication records that an objection was raised for conversion of

¶13

ash 2 pil-113.14

¶14

the said area into the Municipal Council by the local residents as well as the Standing Committee of the Kolhapur Zilla Parishad. It is stated that the concerned Department did not give approval to the said proposal. It is stated that the Urban Development Department, after considering the data, has requested the Rural Development Department to give its opinion. It is stated that after receiving remarks of the Rural Development Department, appropriate decision will be taken by the State Government as expeditiously as possible. The said communication is taken on record and marked “X” for identification.

¶15

In view of the said communication, we direct the State Government to take a final decision on the said proclamation as expeditiously as possible and in any event before 31^st October 2014. The decision shall be communicated to the Petitioners.

¶16

We make it clear that we have not made any adjudication on merits of the controversy between the parties.

¶17

The Petition is disposed of on above terms.

¶18

The parties to act upon an authenticated copy of this order.

¶19

(A.S. CHANDURKAR, J)

¶20

( A.S. OKA, J )

Ashok Bajirao Khade and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Urban Development and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Bajirao Khade and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Urban Development and 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

Shaikh Shakil Shaikh Ibrahim Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Prayagbai Pralhad Suryawanshi and Another Vs Jagdish Saran Saharia and Others

India Centre for Human Right and Law and 3 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Shri. Shrikant Bhimaji Kulkarni Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rajkumar Chandrasen Chavan Vs Executive Engineer, and Ors.

Ganpat Kalu Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Edwin Britto Vs the Secretary, Union of India and Ors.

Sanjay Vishwanath Paramane Vs the State of Maharashtra -through Secretary Education Department and Ors.

Kiran Raghunath Kamble and Anr. Vs Chief Election Commission, through Chief Election Commissioner and Ors.

Kiran Raghunath Kamble and Anr. Vs Chief Election Commission, through Chief Election Commissioner and Ors.

Shri. Sampat Raghunath Kamble and Ors. Vs Shri. Sunil Ashok Sutar and Anr.

Rohini Raju Khamkar Vs Raju Ranba Khamkar

M/S. Devi Construction Company through Its Partner, Shri. Vinod Baney Vs the Municipal Corporation, Pune and Ors.

Vishwanath Dagadu Kothule and Ors. Vs Nashik Municipal Corporation and Ors.