Disposed

Human Rights Security Council, through Controller, Shaybaz Aziz Shaikh v. Talegaon Dabhade Nagarparishad and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Apr 2014PIL/215/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court accepted the applicant's undertaking to remove an offending structure within 12 weeks. Consequently, the Municipal Council was restrained from acting on the notice for that period, and the PIL and Civil Application were disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Municipal Council directed not to take action on the notice for 12 weeks; Applicant undertakes to remove structure within 12 weeks; PIL and Civil Application disposed of.

Human Rights Security Council, through… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

krs

¶2

PIL215.13

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.215 OF 2013

¶6

With

¶7

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.52/2014 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.215/13

¶8

_________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders.

¶9

Ms Meenakshi Sakhare for the Petitioner. Mr.Ketan Joshi for Respondent no.1. Mr.S.S. Shah for the Applicant in C.A.No.52 of 2014.

¶10

CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.A. SAYED,JJ.

¶11

DATE : APRIL 16, 2014.

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

Not on board. Taken on board.

¶14

Heard the learned counsel appearing

¶15

for the Applicant in Civil Application no.52 of 2014; learned counsel appearing for the

¶16

Petitioner in the PIL and the learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Council.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶18

Applicant in the Civil Application, on instructions of M/s.Sai RMC states that the

¶19

application for regularisation of the

¶20

krs

¶21

PIL215.13

¶22

structure made by the Applicant has been rejected. He further states that the Applicant will remove the entire offending structure which is the subject-matter of the notice dated 15.01.2014 issued by the Municipal Council under section 53(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The learned counsel for

¶23

the Applicant states that the Applicant is personally present in Court. He states that the Applicant undertakes to this Court to remove the said structure which is the subject-matter of the notice within 12 weeks from today. We accept the undertaking. An affidavit of undertaking on oath shall be filed by the Applicant in terms of the aforesaid statement within a period of two weeks from today.

¶24

In view of the said undertaking, we direct that Talegaon Municipal Council shall not take any action on the basis of the

2 of 3

krs

PIL215.13

notice dated 15.1.2014 for a period of 12 weeks from today. If the Applicant in the Civil Application fails to remove the structure within a period of 12 weeks from today, it will be open for the Municipal Council to take appropriate action of demolition.

¶29

In view of the aforesaid undertaking,

¶30

the relief claimed in the PIL is worked out. By accepting the aforesaid undertaking and subject to what is observed above, we dispose of the Civil Application as well as the PIL. In the event the offending structure is not dismantled or removed within the stipulated period of 12 weeks, it will be open for the Petitioner in the PIL to take appropriate proceedings.

¶31

3 of 3

Human Rights Security Council, through Controller, Shaybaz Aziz Shaikh v. Talegaon Dabhade Nagarparishad and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Human Rights Security Council, through Controller, Shaybaz Aziz Shaikh v. Talegaon Dabhade Nagarparishad and 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

Vilas Bandu Danwe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Chandrashekhar Kachruji Sarode Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Waheed Mehmood Sayyed Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Anant Shivaji Naik and Anr. Vs Collector of Sindhudurg and Ors.

Meera Sadanand Kamath Vs the States of Maharashtra

Shri. Suryakant Manikrao Deshmukh and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Nabab Sandu Shaikh and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Siddhivinayak Marg Nivasi Seva Sanstha Vs Mira-Bhayander Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Mr. Bajarang Raghuanth Gawade Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Social Justice and Special Assistance and Ors.

Anant Shivaji Naik and Anr. Vs Collector of Sindhudurg and Ors.

Rama Nama Mundkar (Since Decd) through Lrs Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Metro Centre NO.3, Panvel and Anr.

Shri. Mhadu Appa Wanjole, through Attorney Holder, Baburao Mahadu Wanjole Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Revenue Minister, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Shri. Satish Pandurang Chavan and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra, through Town Planning Dept, U.L.C. DEPT-1 and Ors.

Mallikarjun Virsangappa Gadwe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.