Disposed

Pritam S/O Saroromal Chawla and 6 Ors. v. State of Mah. Thr. Secty. and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC5 Oct 2015PIL/16/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the Secretary, Urban Development, State of Maharashtra to decide an appeal filed by respondent No. 5 under Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act within three months and fixed a date for appearance before the added respondent, disposing the PIL without order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Directions to Secretary to decide appeal under Section 47 within three months; parties to appear on 26/10/2015; disposal without order as to costs.

Pritam S/O Saroromal Chawla and 6 Ors. Vs State of Mah… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

1/3

¶2

0510pil16.12.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 16 OF 2012

¶5

(Pritam Sarormal Chawla & others Vs. State of Maharashtra & others)

¶6

- - - - -- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI AND P. N. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATED : 05 OCTOBER, 2015 We have heard Shri S. B. Wahane, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Bharti Dangre, learned Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Shri R. O. Chhabra, learned Counsel for respondent No.3, Shri J. B. Kasat, learned Counsel for respondent No.3 and Shri Tejandar Singh Renu in person for respondent No.5. Effort of Shri Renu is to demonstrate that the petitioners also have indulged in raising unauthorized construction, which is much more in area as compared to area of alleged unauthorized structure of respondent No.5. He makes a grievance that respondent No.4 is not taking any action against that structure. According to Advocate Shri Wahane, no part of structure of petitioners is illegal.

¶7

2/3

¶8

0510pil16.12.odt

¶9

Advocate Shri Wahane attempts to demonstrate how the structure raised by respondent No.5 is unauthorized and illegal. During arguments, our attention is drawn to an affidavit on behalf of respondent No.5 filed by Shri Balbir Singh Renu vide stamp No.10857/13. Paragraph No.3 of the said affidavit shows that respondent No.5 has preferred an appeal under Section 47 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act with respondent No.1-the State Government and that appeal is pending.

¶10

It is, therefore, apparent that any observation of this Court on the nature of construction will not influence consideration of the State Government of said appeal. Learned Government Pleader, in this situation, submits that respondent No.1-the State shall attempt to decide the appeal at the earliest. She, however, points out that respondent No.1 before this Court is State of Maharashtra through its Home Department.

¶11

We grant petitioners leave to implead the State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Urban

¶12

0510pil16.12.odt	3/3
	Development as respondent No.6.
	Learned Government Pleader waives
	notice for the added respondent.
	We direct the added respondent to decide
	the appeal filed by respondent No.5 within a period
	of three months from the date of communication of
	this order to it.
	We direct the parties to appear before the
	said respondent on26/10/2015and to abide by its
	further instructions in the matter. With these
	directions and keeping all rival contentions open, we dispose of this public interest litigation with no order
	as to costs.
	JUDGE JUDGE

¶13

wwl

Pritam S/O Saroromal Chawla and 6 Ors. v. State of Mah. Thr. Secty. and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pritam S/O Saroromal Chawla and 6 Ors. v. State of Mah. Thr. Secty. and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Paramjeet Singh Kalsi Vs State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary (Transport), Home Department Mumbai and Others

Arun Ganesh Deo Vs the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Jan Adalat through Mr. Shaikh Ibrahim Abdul and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Anr.

Yogesh Madhukar Ghode and Ors. Vs Nashik Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Sachin Dharmdas Khobragde and Anothers Vs Food Safety and Standard Authority, through Its Chief Executive Officer New Delhi and Others

Suresh Ratanlal Dalod and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Fr. Walter Saldanha, S.J. and Anr. Vs Pune Cantonment Board and Anr.

Rashad M. Shaikh Vs Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. and Ors.

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Jamnalal Sons Pvt. Ltd.

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Jamnalal Sons Pvt. Ltd.

Shivaji Education Society, Amravati through Its Secretary, Amravati and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra Deptt. of Technical Education through Its Secty., Mumbai and 3 Others

State of Maharashtra through Collector, Gondia and Another Vs Dilipkumar S/O Kamuji Khobragade and Another

State of Maharashtra through Collector, Yavatmal and 2 Others Vs Sau. Latabai W/O Narendra Bhagat

Dhananjay Chandrakrushna Mahajan and Anothers Vs Collector, Akola and 5 Others