Dismissed

Hemant Subhash Dalvi v. State of Maharashtra and 10 Ors.

Bombay HC9 Sept 2014PIL/32/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a PIL challenging the sale of Floor Space Index (FSI) by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority. The Court held that since buildings were constructed and occupation certificates issued based on a 2000 notice, no interference was called for at this stage, expressly declining to adjudicate on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petition rejected; no interference with the sale of FSI ordered.

Hemant Subhash Dalvi Vs State of Maharashtra… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2014)

pil32

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.32 OF 2011

¶5

Hemant Subhash Dalvi ...Petitioner
vs.

¶6

State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

Mr.Abhijit Kulkarni for the petitioner
Mr.H.S.Venegavkar, Addl.G.P for the respondent Nos.1
to 3.

¶9

Mr.Atul Damle for respondent Nos.7 and 9

¶10

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 G.S.KULKARNI, JJ.
 DATE : SEPTEMBER 9,2014

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

1Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,
the learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and
learned counsel for the respondent Nos.7 and 9. By
this PIL, the petitioner has challenged the action
of sale of Floor Space Index of JVPD lay out of the
Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority.
The challenge in this petition is also to the sale
of FSI by the respondent No.2 in favour of
respondent Nos.4 to 11.

¶13

2There is a reply filed by Shri Navindranath
Verma, Secretary of the respondent No.7. It is
pointed out in the reply that for sale of FSI, a
public notice was published by the respondent No.2
in the year 2000. A copy of the notice has been
annexed to the reply. In the reply filed by the

¶14

2 pil32

¶15

respondent No.7, it is pointed out that after the
sale of FSI, building plans were sanctioned by the
Municipal Corporation, the buildings have been
constructed and occupation certificates have been
issued in respect of the buildings long back. It is
stated that even today, FSI to the tune of 10859.44
is available.

¶16

3The sale of FSI was on the basis of the public
notice issued in the year 2000. The present petition
which is purportedly filed in public interest has
been lodged on 23rd December 2010.

¶17

4In view of the statements made in reply filed
by the respondent No.7 that by utilising the FSI,
buildings have been constructed and occupation
certificates have been issued and in view of the
fact that the process of sale has been completed on
the basis of the advertisement issued in the year
2000, at this stage, in this PIL, no interference is
called for. We accordingly, reject the PIL.

¶18

5We make it clear that we have made no
adjudication on merits and that we have not
considered the challenge on merits.

Hemant Subhash Dalvi v. State of Maharashtra and 10 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemant Subhash Dalvi v. State of Maharashtra and 10 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

Madanlal Trivedi Vs the Brihanmumbai Police Karmachari Sahakari Patsoutha Maryadit and Ors.

Deogiri Colony Kalyan Society and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shri. Chandrakant B. Dalvi and Ors. Vs Dy. Registrar (C.S.), Ratnagiri and Ors.

Shri. Chandrakant B. Dalvi and Ors. Vs Dy. Registrar (C.S.), Ratnagiri and Ors.

Tariq Ahmed Azizoddin Farukki Vs the State of Maharashtra through Th Secretary Revenue and Forests Department, Mumbai and Others

Prabhakar S/O Dattatray Karajgar Vs State of Mah. Thr. the Town Planner and Ors.

Aurangabad Bus Owners and Travel Agents Association and Others Vs the Union of India and Others

Adv. Krunal Ananta Adhikari and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary of Ministry of Environment, Mumbai and Ors.

Dr. Shalak Chaturbhuj Agarwal and Anr. Vs Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Sovind Nathuji Chandewar Vs Alka Sovind Chandewar

Nisha Dhawan Vs Pradeep Omprkash Dhawan

Shri. Ramesh Kuber Savalwade Vs Sub-Divisional Officer, Walwa Division, Islampur and Ors.

Mrs. Sucheta Sharad Patil Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Shree Pandurang Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs the Sugar Commissioner, Maharashtra State and Anr.