Disposed

Mr.Ghansham Chaganlal Jatolia and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and 7 Ors.

Bombay HC16 Nov 2016PIL/119/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a PIL questioning the allotment of land to a housing society allegedly meant for backward classes. Finding a pending administrative inquiry by the District Collector, the Court ordered the inquiry to conclude within one year with petitioner participation.

What did the court decide?

Directed the District Collector, Mumbai Suburban District, to conclude the pending inquiry within one year of receiving the order copy, with petitioner participation.

Mr.Ghansham Chaganlal Jatolia and Anr. Vs… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

PIL 119-2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 119 OF 2014

¶3

Ghansham Chaganlal Jatolia & Anr. .. Petitioners V/s

¶4

State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶5

.. Respondents

¶6

Mr. Mohan Bapu Gawade for the petitioners. Mr. U.S. Upadhyay, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 to 5 and 8.

¶7

CORAM: DR. MANJULA CHELLUR, CJ. & M.S. SONAK, J.

¶8

DATE : 16^th NOVEMBER 2016

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

This public interest litigation is filed by the petitioners as a pro bono publico contending that a plot of land admeasuring 9839 sq. yards out of survey no.14 of Chembur, Bombay Suburban District, was allotted to Rashtriya Co-operative Housing Society for the benefit of people belonging to Backward Class community. According to the petitioners now Rashtriya Co-operative Housing Society is changed as Jitendra Makhwana Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Chembur, thereby the members of the society largely belong to other communities other than Backward Class community. Therefore, according to them, the entire modus operandi in getting the allotment and thereafter distribution to the members of the society is make-believe story that it was meant for the people of Backward Class community, but in fact the purpose is not achieved

1 of 2

ABS

PIL 119-2014

and hence allotment of the land to the society must be taken back or cancelled.

¶15

Learned Government Advocate brings to our notice that the office of the District Collector, Mumbai Suburban District is seized of the matter. As a matter of fact, an inquiry seems to have commenced in the year 2010 or so and is still pending. Even the petitioners have made certain annexures which reveals that such an inquiry is within the knowledge of the petitioners. If the concerned authority is already seized of the matter with regard to the issue or controversy raised by the petitioners, we find no reason to keep the PIL petition pending. The inquiry now pending before the District Collector, Mumbai Suburban District, has its logical conclusion after giving opportunity to all the parties concerned. We make it clear that even the petitioners can participate in the said inquiry and if they make such an application, the District Collector concerned must hear them as well. Since the inquiry is kept pending for the last so many years, we make it clear that the District Collector, Mumbai Suburban District, shall take the inquiry in question to its logical conclusion within one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶16

With these observations, the PIL is disposed of.

(M.S. SONAK, J.)

CHIEF JUSTICE

2 of 2

ABS

Mr.Ghansham Chaganlal Jatolia and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Ghansham Chaganlal Jatolia and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and 7 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

Ashok Bansi Tele Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pramod Mahadeo Thakur Vs the Secretary (the Law and Judiciary Department) and Ors.

Mr. Hemant B. Patil Vs Union of India through Its Attorney General and Ors.

Smt. Rehana Habib Merchant Vs the Commissioner, Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Manoj S/O Vitthal Bhalerao Vs State of Maharashtra Thr the Collector, Akola and Another

Pragati Shetkari Mandal, through Its President Raju Sahebrao Wankhede, Jambha Khurd Vs State of Maha., through Its Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept. Mumbai, and Others

Shri Virendra S/O Gajanan Dahikar Vs the State of Maha., Thr. Principal Secretary, Department of Law and Judiciary, Mumbai and Another

Gokuldham Residents Welfare Association Sector-I Vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Aruna G.Jarandikar and Ors. Vs Yashwant Vitthal Mane

Jaya Jayantilal Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Smt. Sumitra Narayan Sakpal Alias Venibai L. Bhuvad through Ca. Shri. Narendra Sakpal Vs Addl. Konkan Divisional Officer and Ors.

Shri. Rajendra Vasantrao Chavan Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Rajendra Vasantrao Chavan Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Sunil Haliram Mulwani and Ors. Vs Kolhapur Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner and Ors.