Dismissed

Dr. v. Aditya Srinivas v the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC19 Mar 2014PIL/114/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a PIL filed by BSE Broker's Forum challenging notices under Section 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. The Court held that the matter had already been adjudicated by the High Court and the Supreme Court in parallel Writ Petitions, which had attained finality. Consequently, no case was made out to entertain the same reliefs again in this public interest litigation.

What did the court decide?

The Petition was dismissed; no costs.

Dr. v. Aditya Srinivas Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

dss

¶2

PIL 114.13 (3).

¶3

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

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.114 OF 2013

¶5

Dr. V. Aditya Srinivas Chief Operating Officer and Chief Economist, BSE Broker's Forum, 808, PJ Tower, Dalal Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 001

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

vs.

¶8

1] The State of Maharashtra (through the Government Pleader, High Court Original Side, Bombay)

¶9

2] The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, a Corporation constituted under the provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, and having its office at Municipal Corporation Building, Mahapalika Marg, Opp. CST Bombay 400 001 through the Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay

¶10

3] The Assistant Commissioner, 'A' Ward, Municipal Corporation of Gr.Bombay, 134-E, S.B.S. Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001

¶11

4] BSE Limited PJ Towers, 25^th Floor Dalal Street, Mumbai-400 001.

¶12

.. Respondents

¶13

Mr.R.S. Apte, Senior Advocate with Mr. Devashish Mitra i/b Legal Assistance for the Petitioner.

¶14

Mr. S.U. Kamdar, Senior Advocate with Ms Sharmila Modle for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶15

Mr. Omprakash Oza i/b the Law Point for Respondent No.4

¶16

CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA AND M. S. SONAK, JJ.

¶17

DATE: MARCH 19, 2014

1/4

dss

PIL 114.13 (3).

ORAL JUDGMENT:- (PER ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

¶22

1] This Public Interest Litigation is filed by the Office Bearer of BSE Broker's Forum and Chief Operating Officer and Chief Economist of BSE Broker's Forum.

¶23

2] This Petition filed on 14^th August 2013 with following prayers:

¶24

“a) That this Hon'ble Court may please to issue a Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other Writ, Order of Direction, directing the Respondent No.2 frame exhaustive policy to determine what are the criteria for carrying out determination of cause under Section 351 (2) of MCGM Act 1888.

¶25

b) That this Hon'ble Court may please to issue a Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other Writ, Order or Direction, directing the Respondent No.2 not to take such measures on the notice served under section 351 of MCGM Act 1888 which may have adverse impact on the public.

¶26

c] That this Hon'ble Court may please to issue a Writ in the nature of mandamus directing not to take any action under Section 351 of the Act till the disposal of the Petition.

¶27

d] Interim and ad-interim orders in terms of prayer (c) above.

¶28

e) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem proper and expedient in the public interest.

¶29

3] Respondent No.4 in this Petition, i.e., BSE Limited, prior to that, some in July 2013 itself challenged some notices issued under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act (for short 'said Act') for the BSE premises dealing with the same issues, i.e., unauthorised extension/constructions in the BSE premises.

2/4

dss

PIL 114.13 (3).

4] After hearing both the parties, by reasoned order, the Hon'ble Single Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.2117 of 2013 dated 16^th January 2014, rejected the Petition, by considering all aspects involving around and connected to the alleged unauthorised constructions and relevant aspects revolving around the said notices. Respondent No.4, therefore, had challenged the order. On 28^th February 2014, the Supreme Court also dismissed the Special Leave Petition. Therefore, the impugned notices and the reasoned order has attained the finality. The learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.4 and the learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent-Corporation accepted the position that even the Supreme Court has not granted any relief whatsoever regarding the structures and the action revolving around it.

¶34

5] The statement is also made by the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.4 that they have asked time/extension to renew and/or vacate the alleged illegal structures. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court only permitted them to apply for the same to the Corporation.

¶35

6] In view of above undisputed position on record and the above facts, itself sufficient not to entertain the present alleged public interest litigation filed by the Petitioner. The individual rights, even if

3/4

dss

PIL 114.13 (3).

any, of the notice based upon Section 351 of the said Act, which have taken care by Respondent No.4, themselves and agitated the issue even, by challenging the action of the RespondentCorporation, prior to filing of the present Petition but that has attained the finality as recorded above. The present Petition is now listed and/or circulated in spite of above order passed by this Court, this is an additional factor to dismiss the present Petition as no case whatsoever made out to consider the case of the Petitioner again for the same reliefs, as public interest litigation. There cannot be public interest litigation to protect the alleged illegal/unauthorised construction, specially when for the same, the Petition already dismissed and has attained finality.

¶40

7] The learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner's submission that the Respondent-Corporation should at least consider the respective noticees' entitlement and / or right to apply for regularization, also cannot be accepted in view of the orders of this Court and the Supreme Court as recorded above. In any way that also cannot be the reason even to entertain this Petition. This Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

¶41

(M. S. SONAK, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

¶42

Sherla

¶43

4/4

Dr. v. Aditya Srinivas v the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. v. Aditya Srinivas v the State of Maharashtra and 3 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

Shubhakamana Co-Op. Hsg. Society Vs Thane Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Association for Aiding Justice Vs Union of India and Ors.

Shri. Punjabrao Appa Bhagat and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Irrgation Dept and Ors.

Shri. Vijay Prabhakar Bhosale Vs Union of India through Chief Secretary, Gov. of India and Ors.

Sayyed Abdul Rauf Sayyed Zamir and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Aam Aadmi Lok Manch, through Founder, Shri. P. P. Goyal Vs State of Maharashtra, through Regional Transport Officer, Pune

Maharashtra Rajya B.Ed. Kruti Samiti, Aurangabad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vasantrao Sitaram Kondalkar Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Mr. Vicky Dharamdeep Jambhulkar and Ors. Vs Sau. Devibai Narayandas Chhabada Rural Education Society and Anr.

Rupali Panchappa Kalyanshetti Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, School Education Dept and Ors.

Shri. Nikunj Janak Gor Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Education Dept and Ors.

Swapnil Dashrath Suryawanshi Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Madhura Bhaskar Gaikwad Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Mr. Anu Hassan Qureshi Vs the State of Maharashtra through Govt. Pleader, and 2 Ors.