Allowed

Jaya Mohan Solanki W/O Mohan Bhim Solanki and Ors. v. Psi Vakola Police Station and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Sept 2014WP/3102/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the police station to consider a filed complaint and decide on its merits. It rejected the petitioner's claim for compensation based on a precedent regarding land acquisition, noting that civil remedies and existing civil suit outcomes were the appropriate forum.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the in-charge Senior Inspector of the concerned Police Station to consider the complaint and take a decision on merits.

Jaya Mohan Solanki W/O Mohan Bhim Solanki and Ors… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

WP. 3102-14

¶2

VPH

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION No. 3102 OF 2014

¶5

Mrs. Jaya Mohan Solanki ... Petitioner Vs.

¶6

PSI, Vakola Police Station & Ors. ... Respondents

¶7

¶8

Mr. Satyam Sreedharan, for the Petitioners. Mrs. M. M. Deshmukh, APP for Respondent – State. Mr. R. Gaikwad, PSI Vakola Police Station – present.

¶9

¶10

CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & P. D. KODE, JJ.

¶11

DATE : SEPTEMBER 4, 2014 PC.

¶12

The grievance of the Petitioner is that though a complaint

¶13

was filed by her which discloses commission of cognizable offence, no decision has been taken by the police and an oral information is given to her that no cognizable offence is made out. In support of this submission, learned counsel for the Petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of – Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of U. P. & Ors. [2013 AIR SCW 6386], particularly the observations made in paragraph 111. In our view, petition can be conveniently disposed of by directing the in-charge Senior Inspector, of the

¶14

1 / 3

¶15

WP. 3102-14

¶16

concerned Police Station, to consider the complaint and take a decision, on merits and in accordance with law and inform the Petitioner accordingly. With this direction, writ petition is disposed of.

¶17

After the above order is dictated, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has placed reliance on another judgment of the Apex Court in the case of – Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors. through Power of Attorney Holder Vs. MIDC & Ors. [AIR 2013 Supreme Court 565]. Our attention is invited to the observations made in paragraph of the judgment, in which the Apex Court has observed that the right to property is now considered to be, not only a constitutional or a statutory right, but also a human right. It is, therefore, submitted that Petitioner is entitled to compensation and other reliefs to protect her property.

¶18

We are unable to accept the said submission since the above observations have been made by the Apex Court in a case where the Petitioner therein had filed a petition in the Bombay High Court, claiming compensation due to the land taken by the Respondent Authority without resorting to any procedure, prescribed by law. SLP

¶19

2 / 3

¶20

WP. 3102-14

¶21

was filed in the Apex Court against the order of the Bombay Court rejecting the claim of compensation. While dealing with the said issue, the Apex Court has made the above observations. In our view, ratio of the said judgment will not apply to the facts of the present case.

¶22

It is open for the Petitioners to obtain appropriate orders from the Civil Court and enforce their right to the property, which is allegedly owned by her. We are informed that, in fact, a civil suit has been field by the Petitioner in the City Civil Court, and after an adinterim relief was refused by the City Civil Court and an Appeal from Order (for short “AO”) was filed in this Court and the said AO is also rejected. If the Petitioner has any grievance in respect of the said order, she can move to the Apex Court and challenge the said order, and as such, therefore, the reliefs claimed by the Petitioners cannot be granted while exercising our writ jurisdiction.

¶23

. Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶24

Vinayak Halemath

¶25

3 / 3

Jaya Mohan Solanki W/O Mohan Bhim Solanki and Ors. v. Psi Vakola Police Station and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaya Mohan Solanki W/O Mohan Bhim Solanki and Ors. v. Psi Vakola Police Station and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nitin Govind Sakare and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Madhukar Trambak Khandare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shri Bhau Daji Patil (Since Deceased) and Others Vs Rajaram Mane and Others

Babitai Tatyaba Nandale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Roshani Sukhraj Bafna Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Babitai Tatyaba Nandale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.