Allowed

M/S. Skylink Developers and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and 11 Others

Bombay HC12 Sept 2014WP/1013/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court set aside an impugned tribunal order that set aside a notification without hearing the petitioner, who had instigated the notification. The High Court restored the appeal to the tribunal for a fresh decision after granting notice to the petitioner, citing violation of natural justice.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 19 September 2013 set aside and appeal restored to Tribunal for fresh decision after notice to petitioner.

M/S. Skylink Developers and Another Vs the… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2014)

WP-1013-14

ASN

1/2

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1013 OF 2014

¶6

M/s.Skylink Developers and anr.

¶7

..Petitioners.

¶8

vs.

¶9

The State of Maharashtra and 11 ors.

¶10

..Respondents.

¶11

Mr. Arun Panickar for the Petitioner. Ms. I.K.Calcuttawalla, AGP for Respondent No..1. Mr. J.G.Reddy for Respondent No.2. Mr. Rishi N. Mishra for Respondent Nos. 3 to 10.

¶12

CORAM : M. S. SANKLECHA, J. DATE : 12 SEPTEMBER 2014

¶13

PC:

¶14

At the request and by consent the petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶15

This petition challenges the order dated 19 September 1013 passed by Maharashtra Slum Areas (I.C.& R) Tribunal ("Tribunal") allowing the appeal filed by respondent Nos. 3 to 10. By the impugned order dated 19 September 2013, the Tribunal set aside the Notification dated 8 September 2010 issued under Section 3(c)(1) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (I.C.&R),1971 ("Slum Act"). The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order is passed without the petitioner being heard even though the notification dated 8 September 2010 was issued at its instance.

¶16

The petitioners have averred in the petition that the Notification dated 8 September 2010 came to be issued at the instance of the petitioner No.2 which is society formed by the Slum Dwellers on the notified property. Besides the survey report prepared by the SRA dated 4 September 2012 also

WP-1013-14

ASN

2/2

records the request made by petitioner No.2 to declare the notified property as slum rehabilitation property under Section 3(C)(1) of the Slum Act.

¶21

In view of the above, the Tribunal ought to have disposed of the appeal filed by respondent Nos. 3 to 10 herein, after having issued notice to the petitioners. The petitioner was neither party to the proceedings before the Tribunal nor was it heard by the Tribunal before passing the impugned order dated 19 September 2013.The petitioners are vitally interested in the Notification dated 8 September 2010 as the same was issued at its instance. Therefore, elementary principles of natural justice would require the petitioner be heard before passing of any order on the Notification dated 08 September 2010. In view of the above, the decision making process adopted by the Tribunal leading to impugned order is flawed.

¶22

In view of the above, I set aside the impugned order dated 19 September 2013 and restore the appeal to the Tribunal for a fresh decision. The Tribunal would pass a fresh order only after giving notice to the petitioner of hearing of the appeal filed by the respondent Nos. 3 to 10.

¶23

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with the above directions.

M/S. Skylink Developers and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and 11 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Skylink Developers and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and 11 Others

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

Abhishek Ramesh Vyas Vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Zakira Mohammed Yahya Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Ajay Madhusudan Marathe Vs Union of India and 10 Others

Vijay Shantaram Mandavkar and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S.Bhoomiutsav Co-Operative Hsg.Soc.Ltd Vs Sridevi C.Pandya and 6 Ors.

Kamala C0-OP. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.