Disposed

Dnyaneshwar Bajirao Darwatkar v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Housing Development Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Jul 2014PIL/97/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay disposed of a PIL and a Writ Petition challenging a stay by the CEO, SRA on slum rehabilitation projects. The court set aside the stay and directed the SRA to decide on proposals by August 1, 2014.

What did the court decide?

The stay instructions of 12 April 2011 by the CEO, SRA were set aside; the SRA was directed to decide on slum rehabilitation proposals by 1 August 2014.

Dnyaneshwar Bajirao Darwatkar Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

PIL 97-2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

PIL NO. 97 OF 2013

¶4

Dnyaneshwar B. Darwatkar .. Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶5

Mr. Siddharth R. Ronghe for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak R. More for respondent nos. 4 and 5. Mr. A.B. Vagyani, A.G.P. for the respondent State.

¶6

WITH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 12152 OF 2013

¶8

Akhil Hirabaug Sahakari Grihanirman Sanstha Ltd.

¶9

Ltd.	..	Petitioner
V/s The State of Maharahstra & Ors.	.	Respondents

¶10

Mr. Pramod G. Kathane for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak R. More for respondent nos. 4 and 5. Mr. A.B. Vagyani, A.G.P. for the respondent State.

¶11

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & M.S. SONAK, J.

¶12

DATE : 1 JULY 2014

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

In this PIL as well as the writ petition, the respective petitioners have challenged the letter dated 12 April 2011 by the Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority of PunePimpri Chinchwad area (“CEO, SRA” for short) staying all SRA projects of Pune-Pimpri Chinchwad on public lands pending clear

1 of 3

Abs

PIL 97-2013

instructions from the State Government on the proposals sent by CEO, SRA of the above area on 28 April 2011 and 19 December 2011.

¶19

In our order dated 10 March 2014, we noted that after issuance of the above instructions, at the meeting presided over by the Minister of State for Housing Development Department held on 20 May 2013, it was clarified that the proposals sent by CEO, SRA of the above area were under consideration, but till the decision on such proposals would be taken there was no stay on consideration of the slum rehabilitation projects. In view of the minutes of the said meeting, we granted interim stay of operation of the said letter dated 12 April 2014 of CEO, SRA of the above area. We had clarified that the order does not preclude the State Government from taking a decision on the proposals sent by CEO, SRA and directed that the decision on the said proposals would be taken before 1 July 2014.

¶20

Mr. Vagyani, learned A.G.P. states that the proposals sent by CEO, SRA of the above area are under consideration of the State Government at the higher level and the decision is expected to be taken thereon at the earliest.

¶21

In view of the above development, we are of the view that nothing further is required to be done in these matters except to dispose of the PIL and the Writ Petition in terms of the following

2 of 3

Abs

PIL 97-2013

directions:

(i) The instructions issued by CEO, SRA of Pune-Pimpri Chinchwad area through the letter dated 12 April 2011 at Exhibit “E” in PIL No. 97 of 2013 are hereby set aside.

¶27

(ii) The CEO, SRA of Pune-Pimpri Chinchwad area shall take decisions on the proposals (including pending proposals) for slum rehabilitation projects on and from 1 August 2014 on the basis of such regulations, which are applicable on the date of consideration of the proposals to slum rehabilitation projects in PunePimpri Chinchwad area.

¶28

The PIL and the Writ Petition are accordingly disposed of with the above directions.

CHIEF JUSTICE

(M.S. SONAK, J.)

3 of 3

Abs

Dnyaneshwar Bajirao Darwatkar v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Housing Development Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dnyaneshwar Bajirao Darwatkar v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Housing Development Dept 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

Shri. Dharmeshbhai Thakorbhai Patle and Ors. Vs Swargeya Sanjibhai Rupjibhai Memorial Trust 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

Rajeev Omprakash Gupta Vs the Government of India and Others

Harihar Vijayrao Garje and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rajesh Ganpatrao Parkale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rail Parishad (N.G.O.), through President, Shri. Bipin M. Gandhi Vs Union of India, Ministry of India Railway, through Chairman and Ors.

Shri. Shrikant Bhimaji Kulkarni Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dnyaneshawar P. Suranje Vs the Assistant Commissioner, N-Ward, Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Mumbai and Others

Prakash Ganpat Sawant Vs Ravindra Babaji Satam and Others

Pritpal Singh Kohli Vs Lalji Jaiswar

Container Corporation of India Vs Mr. Satyawan Dasharath Parkar C/O. Raghunath a. Botle and Anr.

Rajeetram B. Upadhyay Vs M/S. R. K. Films and Studions Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

M/S. R.K. Film and Studios Pvt. Ltd. Vs Rajeetram B,. Upadhyay and Ors.