Dismissed

Arvind Laxminarayan Upadhyay v. the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation for the City of Thane and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Jan 2015WP/3910/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought a writ of mandamus directing the Thane Municipal Corporation to act against unauthorized occupants. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner lacked locus standi and that no prior demand or refusal by the Corporation established the requisite case.

What did the court decide?

None granted. The writ of mandamus petition for action against unauthorized occupants was dismissed.

Arvind Laxminarayan Upadhyay Vs the… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

36-wp3910.14.sxw

¶2

ssm 1

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 3910 OF 2014

¶6

Arvind Laxminarayan Upadhyay

¶7

….Petitioner.

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Thane Municipal Corporation & Ors.

¶10

….Respondents.

¶11

Mr. Sham Walve for the Petitioner.

¶12

Mr. R.S. Apte, Senior Counsel with Mr. N.R. Bubna for Respondent No.1. Ms. Sushma Bhende, AGP for Respondent No.2.

¶13

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND C.V. BHADANG, JJ. DATE : 5^th JANUARY 2015.

¶14

P.C.:-

¶15

By this Petition, the Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent-Corporation to take appropriate action against the Respondent Nos. 3 to 29 as the said Respondents are occupying the unauthorized and illegal structures/premises.

¶16

Shri Apte, the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No.1 raises a preliminary objection to the tenability of the Writ Petition. It is stated that apart from the fact that the Petitioner has no locus-standi to file the Writ Petition, the Petitioner is also not entitled to seek a mandamus against the Corporation. It is stated that the Petitioner had not demanded an action against the Respondent Nos. 3 to 29 before filing of the Writ Petition. It is stated that no notice or representation is made by the

¶17

1/2

¶18

ssm 2 36-wp3910.14.sxw

¶19

Petitioner to the Corporation seeking action against the Respondent Nos. 3 to 29. It is stated that in the absence of any demand to the aforesaid effect, the writ of mandamus cannot be issued.

¶20

Apart from the fact that the Petitioner does not have a locusstandi to file the Writ Petition, we find that the relief sought by the Petitioner cannot be granted. The Petitioner has filed the Writ Petition seeking a writ of mandamus against the Corporation and it is well settled that the Writ of Mandamus cannot be issued unless there is a demand in respect of the relief claimed and a refusal on the part of the Respondent to accede to the demand.

¶21

For the reasons aforesaid, the Writ Petition is dismissed with no

¶22

order as to costs.

¶23

(C.V. BHADANG, J.) (VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)

¶24

2/2

Arvind Laxminarayan Upadhyay v. the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation for the City of Thane and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Laxminarayan Upadhyay v. the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation for the City of Thane and Ors.

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

Shri Swami Vivekanand Shikshan Samsta, through Secretary and Anr. Vs All India Council for Technical Education and Ors.

Baburao Bhau Kamble and Ors. Vs Collector, Kolhapur District, Kolhapur and Ors.

Balaji Mahila Shikshan Prasar and Samaj Kalyan Sanstha, through President, Mrs. Snehal v. Pawar Vs Mira-Bhayander Municipal Corporation, through Commissioner