Dismissed

Smt.Saraswatiben Manubhai Shah and 2 Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Bombay HC19 Oct 2015WP/2311/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a mezzanine floor regularisation application, holding that the alternate remedy under Section 47 of the MRTPLA was available and disputed facts precluded writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The petition challenging the rejection of the mezzanine floor regularisation application was dismissed on ground of alternate remedy and disputed facts.

Smt.Saraswatiben Manubhai Shah and 2 Ors. Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2015)

wp2311.2015

1/2

Dusane

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.2311 OF 2015

¶6

Smt. Saraswatiben Manubhai Shah & Ors.

¶7

.... Petitioners

¶8

Vs.

¶9

State of Maharashtra & Ors. .... Respondents

¶10

Mr. Milind Sathe, Senior Counsel alongwith Ms. Sutapa Saha, for the Petitioners.

¶11

Mr. Hiren Mehta, Advocate for respondent no.6.

¶12

Mr. R.A. Thorat, Senior Counsel alongwith Ms. K.H. Mastakar alongwith Mr. Pandit Kasar for BMC- Respondent no.7.

¶13

Ms. Madhubala Kajale, AGP for the State.

¶14

Ms. Sonali Jadhav, Advocate for MHADA.

¶15

Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 19^th October, 2015

¶16

P.C. :

¶17

1 After the petition has been substantially heard, Mr. Sathe, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners makes a statement that the petitioners do not press the petition for prayers at a(i) to a(iii) and b(i) to b(iii). The petitioners press the

¶18

2/2 wp2311.2015

¶19

Dusane

¶20

petition only for the relief at prayer a(iv) and prayer b(iv). These prayers relate to challenge to the order dtd. 9^th July, 2015 passed by respondent no.7, by which the petitioner's application for regularisation of the mezzanine floor in her premises is rejected. As has been pointed out by Mr. Thorat, the learned Senior Counsel for respondent no.7, since the petitioners have an efficacious alternate remedy provided to them by way of appeal under Section 47 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be maintainable. Besides, there would also, obviously be disputed questions of facts arising as regards the existence and age of mezzanine floor, which can best be decided in the appeal proceedings. Therefore, the challenge by the petitioners to the order of the authorities on regularisation of the mezzanine floor cannot be considered in this petition. The petition is dismissed.

¶21

(Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.)

Smt.Saraswatiben Manubhai Shah and 2 Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Saraswatiben Manubhai Shah and 2 Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and 6 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

Haridas Lachmandas Aswani and Anr. Vs the State of Mharashtra and 6 Ors.

M/S. Golden Enterprises and Anr. Vs Abhyuday Co. Op. Bank Limited and Ors.

Smt. Girija Anilkumar Singh and Anr. Vs Abhyuday Co. Op. Bank Limited and Ors.

Mr.Chedilal Algu Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra and 12 Ors.

Shardashram Vidhyamandir Vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Vujaya Bank Vs Deputy Gevernor and Anr.