Dismissed

Bengal Club v. Wecom Trust and 5 Ors. and Ramakant v Biradar (Contemnor)

Bombay HC5 Oct 2016CONPP/2/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This contempt petition challenged conditions imposed by the BMC on the Petitioner for holding Durga Puja, alleging breach of a prior interim order. The court held that the order explicitly permitted the corporation to impose additional conditions based on exigencies and rejected the petition.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition rejected. Liberty to challenge the order dated 30th September, 2016, preserved.

Bengal Club Vs Wecom Trust and 5 Ors. and… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

conppl-5.16.odt

¶2

pmw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION (L.) NO.5 OF 2016

¶4

¶5

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.483 OF 2011

¶6

¶7

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.116 OF 2009

¶8

Bengal Club … Petitioner Vs. Wecom Trust and Ors. … Respondents

¶9

Mr. D.A. Nalawade a/w Mr. R.A. Lokhande, Mr. Ajay Khairnar i/by Geetanjali Golatkar for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. K. Talukdar a/w Mr. Vishesh Kalra i/by Vidhi Partners for the Orig. Petitioners.

¶11

Mr. S.U. Kamdar, Senior Counsel a/w Ms. Trupti Puranik for the Respondent – BMC.

¶12

Ms. Geeta Shastri, Additional Government Pleader for the Respondent – State.

¶13

CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 5^th OCTOBER, 2016

¶14

P.C.

¶15

1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. The

¶16

contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that

¶17

Condition No.1 imposed by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation in

¶18

communication dated 30^th September, 2016 while granting permission

¶19

1 of 3

¶20

conppl-5.16.odt

¶21

to the Petitioner to hold Durga Puja on Shivaji Park is in breach of the order dated 5^th October, 2011 in Notice of Motion No.483 of 2011 taken out by the Petitioner in PIL No.116 of 2009.

¶22

2 We have perused the order dated 5^th October, 2011. We fail to understand as to how the condition imposed in communication dated 30^th September, 2016 is contrary to the directions contained in order dated 5^th October, 2011.

¶23

3 Paragraphs 9 and 10 which are operative directions in the said order read thus :-

¶24

“9. It will be open to the Municipal Corporation to impose any additional conditions which may be required to be imposed at any given point of time looking to the exigency then prevailing.

¶25

It is clarified that every year the applicants will have to make application to the Municipal Commissioner for permission to use the land in question for organizing Durga Puja and Kali Puja and the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai shall consider the same. But the application shall not be refused on the ground of pendency of the PIL and the interim orders passed therein.”

¶26

2 of 3

¶27

conppl-5.16.odt

¶28

4 Perusal of paragraph 9 shows that on the contrary, a specific liberty was granted to the Municipal Corporation to impose additional conditions considering the exigencies. Therefore, it is impossible to accept that there is any willful or deliberate breach on the part of the Municipal Corporation of the order dated 5^th October, 2011. Accordingly, Contempt Petition is rejected. This order will not preclude the Petitioner from challenging the order dated 30^th September, 2016 in accordance with law.

¶29

(A.A. SAYED, J ) (A.S. OKA, J )

¶30

3 of 3

Bengal Club v. Wecom Trust and 5 Ors. and Ramakant v Biradar (Contemnor)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bengal Club v. Wecom Trust and 5 Ors. and Ramakant v Biradar (Contemnor)

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

Deepak Namdeo Belawale Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Anr.

Jennifer George Dsouza Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Annasaheb Baban Kadam and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bhargav Dilip Dholi Vs Dilip Premjibhai Dholi and 16 Ors.

Wecom Trust and 2 Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors. and Bengal Club (Applicant)

Chandrawati Kanhaiyalal Mishra and Ors. Vs the State of Maharahstra and Ors.