Allowed

Altamount Road Area Citizens Committee and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC26 Jul 2016CHSW/123/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A PIL on an unauthorized scale construction complaint permitted an amendment to the petition at the pre-admission stage to include challenges based on documents inspected during pendency, rather than requiring a fresh filing.

What did the court decide?

Chamber Summons made absolute allowing amendments to be carried out within four weeks and directing a reply to the amended petition within eight weeks.

Altamount Road Area Citizens Committee and… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1/3

¶2

Chs-123-14.doc

¶3

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

¶4

CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.123 OF 2014 IN

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 74 OF 2013

¶6

Altamount Road Area Citizens Committee and anr. .. Applicants/Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents

¶9

Mr.P.N.Modi a/w Mr.I.J.Nankani a/w Mr.H.S.Khokhawala, for the Petitioners/Applicants.

¶10

Mr.H.Y.Shah, AGP for Respondent No.1-State.

¶11

Ms.T.S.Puranik, for BMC.

¶12

Mr.Prabhakar Jadhav i/b Mr.V. P. Sawant, for Respondents No. 13 & 14. Mr.Aspi Chinoy, Sr.Advocate a/w Mr.D.D.Madon, Senior Counsel with Mr.S.V.Doijode and Mr.P.A.Kabadi i/b Doijode Associates for Respondent No.15.

¶13

Mr.Pravin K.Samdani, Senior Counsel with Mr.S.V.Doijode and Mr.P.A.Kabadi i/b Doijode Associates, for Respondent No.16.

¶14

CORAM : A.S.OKA &

¶15

A.A. SAYED, JJ.

¶16

DATED : 26 JULY 2016

¶17

P.C.:

¶18

Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Applicants and

¶19

the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.15. We have also heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Mumbai Municipal Corporation.

1/3

Uday.P.Kambli

2/3

Chs-123-14.doc

The present Chamber Summons is taken out for amendment of the

¶25

Petition, which is based on what was revealed during the inspection of the original documents given to the Applicants/PIL Petitioners during the pendency of the PIL. By the proposed amendment, the Applicants desire to incorporate additional challenges in the PIL.

¶26

The opposition of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.15 is that by amendment, the nature of the original challenge will be completely altered. He submitted that when the Petition was filed, the construction of the building was already completed. He submitted that by the proposed amendment, virtually a new challenge is sought to be brought on record at a belated stage.

¶27

We have carefully considered the submissions. In paragraph (3) of the Affidavit-in-support filed by Captain Ashok Batra, Chairman of the society, it is stated that after affidavits dated 9 October 2013 and 17 January 2014 were filed in the PIL, inspection of the original documents was given by the concerned Respondents to the Applicants. It is further stated that the Chamber Summons is filed for brining on record the relevant facts and documents of which the Applicants became aware after perusing the documents.

2/3

Uday.P.Kambli

3/3

Chs-123-14.doc

The main PIL is at pre-admission stage. On 24 October 2013, this Court directed the Respondents to file -Reply.

¶33

Instead of driving the Applicants to file a fresh PIL, as the PIL is at the admission stage, the proposed amendments deserve to be allowed.

¶34

Accordingly, the Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayer cause (a). Amendments shall be carried out within four weeks from today. Reply to the amended Petition shall be filed within eight weeks from today.

¶35

Place the PIL on 29 September 2016.

¶36

(A.A. SAYED, J.)

¶37

(A.S.OKA, J.)

¶38

3/3

¶39

Uday.P.Kambli

Altamount Road Area Citizens Committee and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Altamount Road Area Citizens Committee and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satyam Dinesh Bansal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shaukatali Suleman Tharadara and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Iqbal Usman Kapadia Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rabindra Nigam and Anr. Vs Banoo Nusserwanji Cama and 7 Ors.

Purshottam Vishandas Raheja Vs Ahsh Shrichand Raheja and Anr.

Manju Naredra Gupta and Anr. Vs Meenakshi Ashok Patil and 7 Ors.