Dismissed

Anil Morarji Kenia v. the State of Maharashtra and 5 Others

Bombay HC4 Apr 2016CONPW/26/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench disposed of a contempt petition alleging non-compliance of an earlier order directing the Respondent Corporation to decide a complaint within a stipulated timeframe. The Court found substantial compliance and ordered the corporation to decide expeditiously, simultaneously disposing of the associated chamber summons.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition disposed of; City Corporation directed to decide complaint as expeditiously as possible. Chamber Summons (L) No. 352 of 2015 disposed of.

Anil Morarji Kenia Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

CONPWL. 25-15

¶2

VPH

¶3

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

¶4

CONTEMPT PETITION (L) No. 25 OF 2015 IN

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. 21 OF 2014 WITH

¶6

CHAMBER SUMMONS (L) No. 352 OF 2015

¶7

Anil Morarji Kenia … Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

¶8

¶9

Mr. Anand Mishra i/b Ashok Sarogi, for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. J. S. Saluja, AGP for the Respondent – State.

¶11

Ms. Trupti Puranik, for the Respondent – BMC.

¶12

Mr. Omkar Khanvilkar i/b Nianca Gomes, for Applicant Nos. 1 to 53 in CHSWL 352/2015.

¶13

¶14

CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & M. S. KARNIK, JJ.

¶15

DATE : APRIL 4, 2016

¶16

PC.

¶17

The Petitioner alleges that there is non compliance of an

¶18

order dated 25^th February, 2014. Perusal of the said order shows that

¶19

in paragraphs 3 and 4 following observations were made by the

¶20

Division Bench, while disposing of the petition:

¶21

1 / 2

¶22

CONPWL. 25-15

¶23

“3. Without observing any thing on merit and by keeping all points open, we are inclined to dispose of the present petition with direction to Respondent Corporation to decide the complaint as early as possible preferably within 12 weeks.

¶24

The petitioner is at liberty to file additional representation and / or supporting material within 4 weeks. The Corporation to decide the complaint within 8 weeks thereafter.”

¶25

In the affidavit in reply, Respondent – Corporation has stated that they have implemented the said order and notices have been issued. In this view of the matter, in our view, there is substantial compliance of the directions given by this Court. The Corporation shall decide the complaint as expeditiously as possible. With this direction, contempt petition is disposed of.

¶26

In view of disposal of the contempt petition, Chamber Summons (L) No. 352 of 2015 filed therein does not survive and is accordingly disposed of.

¶27

Sd/Sd/[M. S. KARNIK, J.] [V. M. KANADE, J.]

¶28

Vinayak Halemath

¶29

2 / 2

Anil Morarji Kenia v. the State of Maharashtra and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Morarji Kenia v. the State of Maharashtra and 5 Others

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

Shaikh Zahid Mukhtar Vs All Maharashtra Human Rights Welfare Association through President Jayesh Mirani

Sandra D/O Karuppanan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S. Sumant Enterprises and Ors. Vs Shree Industries through Partner Mr. Shivaji Jayba Desai

Lalit Basudeo Agarwal Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Navid Alam Mohd Amin Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Santosh Prabhakar Kini Vs Executive Engineer, Thane Municipal Corporation and Ors.