Disposed

Pradnya Mahendra Khillare and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC15 Dec 2014WP/2216/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court Bench entertained a writ petition regarding eligibility for reimbursement of housing benefits. The petitioners claimed entitlement despite lacking a minimum plot area of 269 sq. ft. The Court left rival contentions open and directed the Chief Officer to independently examine the representation within four months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to make representation to Respondent No.2 within 4 weeks for independent consideration.

Pradnya Mahendra Khillare and Another Vs the State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

(1) W.P. No. 2216 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

Writ Petition No. 2216 of 2014

¶4

Sow. Pradnya w/o. Mahendra Khillare, Age : 30 years, Occupation : Labour & Household, R/o. Siddharthnagar, Near MIDC, Railway Station Road, Hingoli, Taluka & District : Hingoli.

¶5

Sow. Punjabai w/o. Eknath Khillare, Age : 65 years, Occupation : Labour & Household, R/o. Siddharthnagar, Near MIDC, Railway Station Road, Hingoli, Taluka & District : Hingoli. .. Petitioners.

¶6

versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Department of Urban Development and Employment & Poverty Alleviation, Mantralaya, Mumbai (Maharashtra).

¶8

The Chief Officer (CEO), Municipal Council office, At Hingoli, Taluka & Dist. : Hingoli.

¶9

The Chairman, Municipal Council office, at Hingoli, Taluka & Dist. : Hingoli.

¶10

.. Respondents.

¶11

Mr. G.J. Karne, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.1.

¶13

(2) W.P. No. 2216 of 2014

¶14

Mr. Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate, for respondent nos.2 and 3.

¶15

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & A.M. BADAR, JJ.

¶16

DATE : 15TH DECEMBER 2014

¶17

PER COURT :

¶18

Heard respective Counsel for the parties.

¶19

Only question is, whether petitioners in order to be eligible to claim benefit of reimbursement, must possess a plot with minimum area of 269 Square Feet.

¶20

Adv. Mr. Karne for the petitioners submits, that an undertaking has been obtained from the petitioners, in prescribed format, by the respondents and as per that format, area of 269 Square Feet can be utilized by constructing ground floor, floor above it, and further floors above it.

¶21

The respective Counsel appearing for respondents dispute this. They submit, that the building plan must be approved by the planning authority and for that, the plot must possess minimum required area as per D.C.R.

¶22

The guidelines which regulate the scheme for providing basic

¶23

(3) W.P. No. 2216 of 2014

¶24

amenities to urban poor, as framed by State Government through its Housing Department, on 25th June 2007, does not expressly govern these facets.

¶25

In this situation, leaving all rival contentions open, we direct the petitioners to make appropriate representation to the respondent no.2 within a period of four weeks from today. If such representation is made, respondent no.2 shall look into it, independently, uninfluenced by our orders and take suitable decision upon it, within further period of four months.

¶26

With these observations and directions, we dispose of the petition. No costs.

¶27

( A.M. BADAR ) ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶28

puranik / WP2216.14

Pradnya Mahendra Khillare and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradnya Mahendra Khillare and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Gopal Prabhakar Bhagwat Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer and Ors.

Krushnabai Gajendra Telang and Another Vs the Union of India and Others

The Executive Engineer Krishna Khore Vikas Mahamandal M.I., Osmanabad Vs Bhonaji Bajirao Palve and Others

Uday Manohar Gandhewar Vs Municipal Council, Kinwat Thr Chief Officer and Ors.

Nago Pundalik Ganar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ravindra Arjun Bagul Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others