Petition challenging an order under the Slum Act dismissed as jurisdictional defect is cured by subsequent amendment and no useful purpose served in remand.
Petition dismissed and award held as having been correctly passed by the Deputy Collector.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1/4
WP/2188/2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2188 OF 2012
Ratnakar G. Malvankar & Ors
…. Petitioners.
V/s
The State of Maharashtra & Ors ….. Respondents.
Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar i/b Omar Khaiyam Shaikh for the Petitioners.
Mr. Milind More, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Vijay Patil for Respondent No.4. Mr. P.K. Dhakepalkar, Senior Counsel with Mr. G.B. Bhagat
CORAM: V. M. KANADE & A.K. MENON, JJ.
DATE: 2nd April, 2014
P.C.:- (Per V.M. Kanade, J.)
2/4
WP/2188/2012
Respondent No.3 did not have jurisdiction or authority to decide the application under sections 33 and 38 of the Slum Act. It is submitted that the relevant clause (i-a) of section 3D(e) of Chapter VII was deleted in 2012 and, therefore, the impugned order having been passed much prior to the said deletion, Deputy Collector did not have jurisdiction to decide the said application which was filed under sections 33 and 38. It is then submitted that several criminal proceedings have been initiated against the Respondents on account of fabrication of record. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners has taken us through the relevant provisions under the Act and Regulations framed thereunder. Reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners on various judgments of Division Bench of this Court in support of his contention.
3/4
WP/2188/2012
prospectively.
4/4
WP/2188/2012
33D(e) obviously was to ensure that lacuna which had remained in implementation of the Slum Act was cured by deletion of the said clause and, as such, therefore, to that extent, the orders which have been passed earlier by the Deputy Collector have been validated by virtue of the said amendment. Thirdly, so far as allegation of fabrication of record is concerned, the said fact would not in any manner affect the order passed under sections 33 and 38 of the Slum Act.
(A.K. MENON, J. ) (V.M. KANADE, J.)
bdpps
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order can be set aside on hyper technical grounds of want of jurisdiction by the Deputy Collector.
Whether the deletion of clause (i-a) of section 3D(e) amends the jurisdiction regarding matters decided prior to deletion.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Ratnakar G. Malvankar & Ors
The State of Maharashtra & Ors
V. M. Kanade
A. K. Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
