Disposed

Angel Construction Company v. the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC25 Feb 2015WP/544/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of this writ petition by directing the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority to consider the petitioner's representation regarding the land no longer falling in CRZ areas at its next meeting.

What did the court decide?

Direction to MCZMA to consider the petitioner's representation dated 9th February, 2015 expeditiously at the next meeting.

Angel Construction Company Vs the State of… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2015)

916-wpl-498.2015.sxw

.. 1 ..

hvn

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 498 OF 2015

¶6

M/s. Angel Construction Company … Petitioners

¶7

Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents

¶8

Mr. Aniruddha Joshi, Mr. Viraj Maniar along with Mr. Nakul Jain i/by Maniar Srivastava Associates for the petitioners.

¶9

Ms. T.H. Puranik for respondent B.M.C.

¶10

Ms. Sharmila Deshmukh, for respondent MCZMA.

¶11

Mr.H.S. Venegaonkar, A.G.P. For respondent State.

¶12

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & B.P. COLABAWALLA,J.

¶13

DATE : 25 FEBRUARY, 2015

¶14

P.C.

¶15

Earlier the petitioner's proposal sent to the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA) was rejected at the meeting of MCZMA held on 15^th May, 2012 on the ground that the industrial activities were not allowed in CRZ areas. Petitioner now seeks to rely upon the report dated 30^th March, 2012 and corrigendum dated 14^th January, 2015 of the Institute of Remote Sensing, Chennai for the purpose of contending that the land in question now does not

¶16

.. 2 .. 916-wpl-498.2015.sxw

¶17

fall in CRZ area. The petitioner has accordingly made a representation dated 9^th February, 2015 to MCZMA to that effect.

¶18

We are of the view that this petition can be disposed of at this stage by directing MCZMA to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 9^th February, 2015 in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and preferably at the next meeting of MCZMA. MCZMA will consider the representation along with such material as the petitioner may produce before it. In case MCZMA takes the view that the land in question falls outside the CRZ area, then obviously the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai will also consider the petitioner's application for development on that basis in accordance with law. The Petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of the above directions.

¶19

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶20

(B.P. COLABAWALLA,J.)

Angel Construction Company v. the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Angel Construction Company v. the State of Maharashtra and 3 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

Sea Link Marine Equipments Private Limited (Cin U29253MH2011PTC214934) Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Mr. Jitendra Maneklal Shah Prop of M/S. Kartik Enterprises, Vs Mr. Alwyn William Silveria

Save Open Spaces and Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 10 Ors.

Municipal Corporation for the City of Kalyan and Dombivali Vs M/S. National Peroxide Ltd.

National Peroxide Ltd. and Anr. Vs Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corpn. and Anr.

Sharekhan Ltd. Vs Parul Shah and Anr.