Disposed

Prashant N. Keluskar v. Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Jun 2014PIL/214/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the PIL without adjudicating merits, keeping the legality of the contract termination open for appropriate proceedings and granting liberty for representation regarding insufficient stamp duty.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with liberty to file representation on insufficiency of stamp and direction to take steps after lawful termination.

Prashant N. Keluskar Vs Mira Bhayander Municipal… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

1-pil-214-10

Ladda

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No.214 of 2010.

¶6

Shri Prashant N. Keluskar

¶7

..Petitioner.

¶8

V/s.

¶9

Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation & others...Respondents.

¶10

Mr R.D. Suryawanshi for the Petitioner Mr N.R.Bubna, for the respondent No.1.

¶11

Mr Chetan Kapadia a/with Mr Sharad B. Wakchore i/by M/s Kishore Thakordas & Co. for Respondent No.2. Mr V.P. Malvankar, AGP “A” Panel for Respondent Nos. 3 to 5.

¶12

CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.S.CHANDURKAR, JJ. DATE : 25th June 2014.

¶13

P.C.

¶14

An affidavit of Shri Suresh Mannalalji Kakani, Municipal Commissioner

¶15

of the first Respondent is taken on record. In his affidavit, it is stated that a show cause notice has been issued to the second Respondent calling upon the second Respondent to show cause as to why the contract should not be terminated. The notice records that the second Respondent is liable to pay a sum of Rs.45,45,000/-towards yearly rent. An affidavit has been filed by the second Respondent today contending that the Resolution passed by the General Body providing for the termination of the contract is illegal.

¶16

Now, the Municipal Administration has taken steps for implementation of the resolution passed by the General Body and a show cause notice of the termination of the contract has been served to the second Respondent.

¶17

After considering the reply, If any, submitted by the second Respondent,

¶18

the first Respondent is bound to take steps in accordance with law on the

1 of 2

1-pil-214-10

basis of the said show cause notice. Appropriate steps shall be taken expeditiously.

¶23

As far as prayer (c) is concerned, after the contract is terminated in accordance with law, the Municipal Corporation will have to take appropriate steps. As regards prayer clause (d), we grant liberty to the Petitioner to file a representation before the appropriate Authority which is competent to decide the issue of insufficiency of stamp. If such representation is made, the same shall be decided in accordance with law. As regards prayers (e), (f) and (g), an appropriate action will have to be initiated after termination of the contract.

¶24

The second Respondent has contended that the resolution providing for cancellation of the contract is illegal. Various contentions of merits have been raised in the affidavit tendered today. However, in this Petition, it is not necessary for this Court to adjudicate upon the said contentions which can be agitated by the second Respondent in the appropriate proceedings. The said contentions are kept open.

¶25

Subject to what is recorded above, the Public Interest Litigation is disposed of.

¶26

We make it clear that if the Petitioner finds that the lawful steps are not taken by the Municipal Corporation within a reasonable time, it will be open for the Petitioner to file a fresh Petition.

¶27

(A.S.CHANDURKAR, J)

¶28

( A.S. OKA, J )

¶29

2 of 2

Prashant N. Keluskar v. Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant N. Keluskar v. Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation and Ors.

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

Gurdino Jiwatram Kukreja Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sandeep Suresh Ghadge Vs Pandurgang Sahakari Sakhar Karkhanan Ltd. and Ors.

Ajim Abbas Mulani Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary, Govt of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sandeep Suresh Ghadge Vs Pandurgang Sahakari Sakhar Karkhanan Ltd. and Ors.

Rajeev Omprakash Gupta Vs the Government of India and Others

Sudhir Pralhad Barge Vs the Commissioner, Thane Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Shaikh Ayyub Shaikh Shabir Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

The Indian Express and Anr. Vs Mathew Yanmal, Gurukul Godavari Balak Ashram, Pune

Shri. Ramesh Revansiddha Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Dept and Ors.

Shri. Ramesh Revansiddha Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Dept and Ors.

Mr. Prakash Rajaram Taware Vs the Bhiwandi Nijampur City Municipal Corporation, Islampura and Anr.

The Mayani Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Mayani, through Mr. Prakash Ganpati Chothe Vs the Judge of the Co-Operative Court, Satara and Ors.

Ramchandra Baburao Kachare and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Smt. Baby Sapura Yakub Mhaldar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.