Disposed

Shri. Sanjay S/O Badriprasad Agrawal v. Nagpur Improvement Trust, Thr. Its Chairman and 5 Others

Bombay HC20 Aug 2014PIL/90/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL regarding illegal kiosks near Futala Lake, the court disposed of the matter as the Trust's order terminated the relevant agreement, redressing the petitioner's grievance. Permission was also granted to withdraw a considerable sum deposited in the Registry pending a separate dispute.

What did the court decide?

Public Interest Litigation disposed of with no order as to costs; permission granted to respondent to withdraw deposited amount.

Shri. Sanjay S/O Badriprasad Agrawal Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

2008pil90.13

¶2

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 90 OF 2013

¶5

Sanjay Badriprasad Agrawal VERSUS N.I.T. Sadar Nagpur & Ors.

¶6

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

Court's or Judge's orders

¶9

¶10

Smt R. D. Raskar counsel for the petitioner.

¶11

Shri S. K. Mishra counsel for the respondents 1 to 4. Shri U. A. Gosawi counsel for respondent 5.

¶12

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND A. S. CHANDURKAR, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 20, 2014 .

¶13

By this Public Interest Litigation the petitioner has sought a direction to the respondents no. 1 to 6 to demolish the illegal and excess food kiosks and unauthorized food joints on the eastern corner of the road, adjacent to Futala Lake. The petitioner seeks a further direction to the respondents 1 to 6 to remove the illegal boards and hoardings on the northern side of the footpath. Certain other ancillary directions are also sought by the petitioner against the respondents 1 to 5.

¶14

According to the petitioner, several permanent structures have come up in the vicinity of Futala Lake in violation of the agreement between respondent no.1 and respondent no. 5. According to the petitioner, only mobile food kiosks or temporary structures could have been permitted in terms of the agreement, however, permanent structures have come up on the road side.

¶15

2008pil90.13

¶16

¶17

After service of notice on the respondents, it was stated on behalf of the Nagpur Improvement Trust that there was a breach of agreement by the respondent no.5 and hence notice was issued by the Trust to the respondent no.5 in that regard. It was brought to the notice of this Court on one of the previous dates of hearing that the respondent no.5 had allowed the shop keepers to run their shops on a place which was earmarked for parking and sitting areas. A statement was made on behalf of the respondent no.5 that said respondent had not recovered any rent from the shop keepers since last three years, the statement was however disputed by the shopkeepers, who had also filed Writ Petition No. 3749 of 2014. After reading the agreement executed between the Nagpur Improvement Trust and the respondent no.5 this Court directed the respondent no.5 to deposit the amount received as deposit from the shopkeepers with the Registry of this Court. It appears that on 28.07.2014 the respondent no.5 deposited the amount in the Registry of this Court in compliance of the order dated 25.07.2014.

¶18

Today the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 has tendered an affidavit in reply on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 in the Court. The same is accepted on record. It is stated in the affidavit in reply that after the Trust received the reply to the Show Cause Notice from the respondent no.5, the Chairman of the Nagpur Improvement Trust was pleased to appoint a committee of 5 members to assess the violations of the terms of the agreement dated 17.02.2010 by the respondent no.5. It is stated in the affidavit that after hearing the parties, the Chairman, by his order dated 16.08.14, has terminated the agreement dated

¶19

2008pil90.13

¶20

¶21

17.02.2010 with immediate effect due to violation of certain clauses in the agreement. It is stated in the affidavit that Chairman has further passed an order that the respondent no. 5 shall vacate the premises within a period of seven days failing which the Nagpur Improvement Trust would get the premises vacated at the responsibility and costs of the respondent no.5. A copy of the order passed by the Chairman of the Trust is annexed to the affidavit-in-reply.

¶22

After reading the affidavit in reply, Smt. Raskar, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed in view of the termination of the agreement dated 17.02.2010. It is stated that with the termination of the agreement, the illegal and excess food kiosks would not be illegally operated by the persons who were permitted by the respondent no.5 to operate them. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that with the termination of the agreement between the Nagpur Improvement Trust and the respondent no.5, there would be no question of erecting illegal boards and hoardings on the northern side of the footpath. It is stated that the grievance of the petitioner stands fully redressed with the termination of the contract between the Nagpur Improvement Trust and the respondent no.5.

¶23

Since the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed in view of the termination of the contract between the Nagpur Improvement Trust and the respondent no. 5, the Public Interest Litigation stands disposed of with no order as to costs.

¶24

At this stage Shri Gosavi the learned counsel for the respondent no.5 seeks permission to withdraw the sum of

¶25

2008pil90.13

¶26

¶27

Rs. 23,75,000/- deposited by the respondent no.5 with the Registry of this Court in terms of the order dated 25.07.2014. Shri Mishra, the learned counsel for the Nagpur Improvement Trust opposes the prayer made on behalf of the respondent no.5 and states that an amount of nearly Rs. 23,82,097/- is due and payable by the respondent no.5 to the Nagpur Improvement Trust. We would not like to adjudicate on the dispute in regard to the rights and liabilities interse between the respondents 1 and 5 in respect of the dues allegedly payable by them. We, therefore, permit the respondent no.5 to withdraw the amount deposited by the respondent no. 5 in this Court. The parties are at liberty to take appropriate steps to redress the dispute in regard to the payment of dues, if any.

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

svk

Shri. Sanjay S/O Badriprasad Agrawal v. Nagpur Improvement Trust, Thr. Its Chairman and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Sanjay S/O Badriprasad Agrawal v. Nagpur Improvement Trust, Thr. Its Chairman and 5 Others

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

Tekchand Gopaldas Khanchaani Vs State of Maharashtra and 8 Others

Atul Vithal Shirsath Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shri Santoshi Mata Mandir Bachav Samiti Vs Shri Santoshi Mata Mandir Trust and 12 Ors.

Shri C.R. Jaya Sukin Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Ajay Madhusudan Marathe Vs Union of India and 10 Others

Siddiki Abdulahaphij Ma. Raphi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gururaj Dilip Pore Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Anr.

Vashu Panjumal Kukreja Vs Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Dnyan Sanwardhan Shikshan Sanstha Gond-Umari Vs Dy. Director of Education, Nagpur and 2 Others

Pritesh S/O Raju Thul Vs Union of India, through Its Secretary, Ministry of Coal New Delhi and Another

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Vidrabha and 2 Ors. Vs Anjuman Hami-E-Islam, Sadar Thr. President AND2 Ors.

Sarojini Raosaheb Bhatkar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Department Mumbai and Others

Arvind S/O Atmaram Ramteke Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Department of Education, Mumbai and Others

Dr. Vivek Padmakar Deshpande Vs the Recovery Officer, Improvement Trust, Nagpur and 1