Allowed

Shreeji Vijay "B" Co-Operative Housing Society Limited v. Slum Rahabilitation Authority and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC30 Jul 2014WP/1793/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition by directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.7,97,562/- as water charges within two weeks. The Court directed the Water Corporation to re-connect supply and kept all other points open regarding the developer and amnesty scheme. No costs awarded.

What did the court decide?

Deposit of Rs.7,97,562/- within two weeks to secure re-connection of water supply. All other points kept open.

Shreeji Vijay "B" Co-Operative Housing Society Limited… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp1793.13

¶2

krs

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1793 OF 2013

¶5

Shreeji Vijay “B” Co-operative Housing Society Limited : Petitioner V/s. Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors. : Respondents

¶6

Mr.Ajay Basutkar for the Petitioner.

¶7

Mr.B.V. Phadnis i/b. G.D. Utangale for Respondent no.1.

¶8

Ms Sheela Tambe for Respondent nos.2 & 3.

¶9

Mr.Nirman Sharma i/b. Dharam & Co., for Respondent no.4.

¶10

... CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA & A.A. SAYED, JJ.

¶11

DATE : JULY 30, 2014. P.C.:

¶12

Rule, returnable forthwith.

¶13

Learned counsel for the respective Respondents waive service.

¶14

Heard finally by consent of parties.

¶15

The members of the Petitioner who are purchasers of flats of sale component area from Respondent no.4 claim that the Respondent-Corporation is not permitting them water connection for non-payment of water charges due and payable by Respondent no.4. The Respondent-Corporation by affidavit dated 14.07.2014 pointed out that pro-rata water charges to the tune of Rs.16,75,551/- and Rs.8,77,989/- is due from rehabilitation component and Rs.7,97,562/- from sale component. The Petitioner is concerned with the sale

1 of 2

wp1793.13

krs

component area. Therefore, the Petitioner is willing to deposit the amount so referred to above without prejudice to their rights and contentions. Learned counsel for Respondent nos.2 and 3, on instructions of Mr.S.S.Rane, Asstt. Engineer (Water Works), R/South Ward, makes a statement that on payment being made, they are agreeable to re-connect water supply even to the sale component premises. On this, we are inclined to dispose of the present Petition by keeping all points open with a direction to the Petitioner to pay to the Corporation Rs.7,97,562/- within two weeks.

¶20

The Respondent-Corporation to take steps accordingly, in view of the statements so recorded, within two weeks thereafter, subject to compliance of formalities, if any. Respondent no.4 developer's representation towards water charges liability is still pending with the Corporation. The Corporation to deal with the same, in accordance with law, after giving hearing to all concerned. All points are kept open. It is open for the Petitioner as well as the developer to apply under the amnesty scheme announced by the Corporation, if any.

¶21

The Petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs.

¶22

2 of 2

Shreeji Vijay "B" Co-Operative Housing Society Limited v. Slum Rahabilitation Authority and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shreeji Vijay "B" Co-Operative Housing Society Limited v. Slum Rahabilitation Authority and 3 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

Kum. Aishwarya a. Ghonge Vs the Directorate, Medical Education and Research, Mumbai and Ors.

Akash Laxman Sakat, through Laxman Kisan Sakat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kaushik Jayant Gijare, through Jayant Vishwanath Gijare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Diksha Rajiv Walke Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Social Justice and Special Assistant and Anr.

Miss. Pratiksha Lahu Dehade Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Higher and Technical Education and Anr.

Diksha Rajiv Walke Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Social Justice and Special Assistant and Anr.