Disposed

Ilahai Ranglal Futankar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC16 Dec 2014WP/2637/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging lack of allotment to displaced persons in municipal shops. Bench directed Municipal Council to consider petitions within two weeks regarding availability of shops or new schemes for allotment.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with liberty to file proper representation within two weeks for Municipal Council to consider entitlements while effecting allotment.

Ilahai Ranglal Futankar and Others Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

WP 2637.14

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2637/2014

¶5

ILAHAI RANGLAL FUTANKAR & OTHERS.
...PETITIONERS...

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS.

¶8

...RESPONDENTS...

¶9

 .....

¶10

Shri N.B. Jadhav, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri P.P. More, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4.
Respondent no.5 served.

¶11

Shri K.K. Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent No.6.

¶12

 .....

¶13

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

¶14

DATE: 16.12.2014

¶15

ORDER :

¶16

1]Petitioners who have lost possession in 2010 did not
question auctions conducted by Municipal Council in 2011
when the shops constructed by it in shopping complex were
allotted. Petitioners did not participate in it.

¶17

2]Demand of petitioners now is as they are displaced

¶18

persons, as per Government policy / Municipal policy,
they must be allotted shops by according necessary
precedence. Earlier order passed by this Court when
piece of land was made available to such displaced
persons is being pressed into service.

¶19

WP 2637.14 - 2 -

¶20

3]Advocate Shri Kulkarni states that presently no
shops are available.

¶21

4]Shri Jadhav, however, states that shops auctioned in
2011 were for a period of three years and hence shops
will again become available for allotment. He, however,
seeks permanent allotment in place of shops lost earlier
in 2010. Without prejudice, he adds that a new shopping
complex is also proposed by Municipal Council and
petitioners will be satisfied if their entitlement is
considered against the shops / blocks becoming available
in it.

¶22

5]Advocate Shri Kulkarni is seeking time to find out
whether there is any such scheme to construct shopping
complex.

¶23

6]We do not wish to go into these niceties. The shops
auctioned in 2011 and taken on lease may not fall
physically vacant for allotment to petitioners. However,
if any such shops become available, the entitlement of
petitioners to same can be looked into by Municipal
Council. Similarly, if there is any scheme to construct
new shopping complex / complexes, the entitlement of
petitioners can also be considered at that juncture.

¶24

WP 2637.14 - 3 -

¶25

7]Hence, with liberty to petitioners to file proper
representation with necessary details and if such
representation is filed within a period of two weeks from
today, with direction to Municipal Council to consider it
while effecting allotment/s, we dispose of present
petition. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶26

ndk/ c16121441.doc

Ilahai Ranglal Futankar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ilahai Ranglal Futankar and Others 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

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

Pradnya Mahendra Khillare and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Bharatsing Gulabsingh Lakhad and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Nath Forge Private Limited Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ram Baburao Haral Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others