Disposed

Rajeshkumar Dewandchand Mehra and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Apr 2014WP/1005/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, petitioners challenged the appointment of a developer for housing society redevelopment. The court directed MHADA to consider the petitioners' representation expeditiously while evaluating the proposal and grant of no objection certificate.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to MHADA to consider the petitioners' representation dated 21 January 2014 while examining the redevelopment proposal and appointment of the develope

Rajeshkumar Dewandchand Mehra and Ors. Vs the State of… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1 of 3 WP(L).257.2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION (L) NO.257 OF 2014

¶4

Rajesh Mehra and others Petitioners

¶5

versus

¶6

State of Maharashtra and others Respondents

¶7

Ms.Manjiri Parasnis i/by Dipashri Raorane for Petitioners. Mr.Milind More, AGP for Respondent no.1 State.

¶8

Ms.Rajlaxmi for Respondent no.7.

¶9

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND M.S.SANKLECHA, J.

¶10

DATE : 1 April 2014

¶11

PC :

¶12

In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Petitioners, four in number, have challenged the appointment by Respondent no.6 co-operative housing society of Respondent no.7 as the developer for the purposes of redevelopment of the property being the buildings of Respondent no.6 housing society. At the special general meeting of the Respondent no.6 housing society held on 3 November 2013, a resolution was passed by a majority of 18 out of 19 members, who attended the meeting appointing Respondent no.7 as the developer for the redevelopment project of Respondent no.6 housing society. The Petitioners have made a representation dated 21 January 2014 to MHADA objecting to the said resolution. The Petitioners have,

¶13

2 of 3 WP(L).257.2014

¶14

therefore, prayed for a writ of Mandamus to direct MHADA to consider the said representation at Exhibit-I to the petition. The Petitioners have also prayed for directions to the State Government, MHADA and the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies not to grant any no objection certificate to Respondent nos.6 and 7 for redevelopment.

¶15

Learned counsel for MHADA states that after the resolution is passed by a housing society for redevelopment and for appointment of a developer by majority on land belonging to MHADA, MHADA examines the proposal for no objection certificate.

¶16

It appears that these four Petitioners are stalling the project for which a resolution has already been passed by 18 members out of 19 members who attended the said special general body meeting. We do not propose to make any other observation in favour of the Petitioners.

¶17

In view of the above, it is clear that MHADA will be looking into the matter while considering the proposal of Respondent no.6 housing society for redevelopment and appointment of Respondent no.7 as a developer. Accordingly, this writ petition is required to be disposed of with a direction that while considering the proposal of Respondent no.6 housing society for redevelopment of its properties and for appointment of Respondent no.7 as a developer, MHADA shall also consider Petitioners' representation dated 21 January 2014 which is at Exhibit-I to this petition. The matter shall be considered

¶18

3 of 3 WP(L).257.2014

¶19

by MHADA as expeditiously as possible and preferably within one month from the date of receipt of the proposal from Respondent no.6 housing society or within one month from today, whichever is later. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶20

(CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶21

(M.S.SANKLECHA, J.)

¶22

MST

Rajeshkumar Dewandchand Mehra and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeshkumar Dewandchand Mehra and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Sgs Infratech Limited Sgc Mall Vs Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Ors.

Ispat Industries Limited Vs Mrs. Prabha P. Shenai

Brian Robert Alexander and Ors. Vs M/S. A.G. Enterprises

Inter Gold (I) Ltd. Vs Collector of Central Excise.

Shri. Nainesh Suresh Dolas Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Home Minister, Home Dept and Ors.

Vinay S. Sonpal and Ors. Vs B.M.C. and Ors.