Dismissed

M/S. Ismail Educational Trust v. Municipal Commissioner for Greater Mumbai and 6ORS

Bombay HC11 Mar 2016PIL/19/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court examined a petition challenging an order regarding reservation changes on a plot. Finding the petitioner-trust was not interested in claiming the plot allotment, the court held the petitioner was disentitled to maintain the Public Interest Litigation.

What did the court decide?

The PIL was declined to be entertained and disposed of.

M/S. Ismail Educational Trust Vs Municipal… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2016)

ospil19

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.19 OF 2014

¶5

M/s.Ismail Educational Trust ...Petitioner
vs.

¶6

Municipal Commissioner for
Greater Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

Mr.A.W.Mulla for the Petitioner

¶8

Ms Geeta Shastri, Addl.G.P for the respondent No.6
Ms Trupti Puranik for respondent No.1

¶9

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 G.S.KULKARNI, JJ.

¶10

 DATE : MARCH 11, 2016

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

1The substantive challenge in this petition is
to the order of the State Government under clause(c)
of sub-section 1-AA of section 37 of the Maharashtra
Regional and Town Planning Act,1966 by which the
reservation on the plot in question in the
sanctioned development plan for a municipal primary
school has been changed to “industrial training
centre”. The petitioner is a registered public
trust. The petition discloses that in the year
2002, an application was made by the petitioner to
the Mumbai Municipal Corporation for allotment of
the said plot for construction of its primary and
secondary school. Therefore, the question is
whether the petitioner can maintain this petition as
a Public Interest Litigation. Though the learned
counsel for the petitioner claims that the

¶13

2 ospil19

¶14

petitioner is not interested in claiming the
allotment of the plot in question, we may note
clause (g) of clause 2 of the points to be
considered in the synopsis which read thus:

¶15

“(g)the letter of request issued by trust
reminding the MCGM for allotment of the plot
reserved for primary school.”

¶16

2Thus, the petitioner-trust was interested in
allotment of the plot of land subject matter of this
petition. Therefore, the petitioner is disentitled
to maintain this PIL. We, therefore, decline to
entertain this PIL. We dispose of the PIL. If the
petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, it
will be open for the petitioner to challenge the
same in accordance with law. All contentions on
merits are kept open.

M/S. Ismail Educational Trust v. Municipal Commissioner for Greater Mumbai and 6ORS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Ismail Educational Trust v. Municipal Commissioner for Greater Mumbai and 6ORS

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

Anil Shamsundar Agre Vs Union of India Thr Secretary, Food and Supply Dept., Mantralaya, New Delhi and Others

Ashok Rarajaram Kharkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mumbai Mahanagar Vyapari Seva Parishad Vs Commissioner and 5 Ors.

Netaji Ramchandra Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Shri Appasaheb Babaji Patil and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Shri Appasaheb Babaji Patil and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Sau. Mangala W/O Shrikrishna Patil, President, Municipal Council, Malkapur and Anothers Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and 2 Othe

Shri C.R. Jaya Sukin Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

M/S. Foreign Import and Export Association Vs Mr.Kisandas B.Nagpal and 16 Ors.

Pipe and Tube Products Vs Mapletree Property Pvt. Ltd. and 5 Ors.

Suresh Gyanchand Kumar Vs Nitul Textiles and 4 Others

Kishwar Mirza Vs the State of Maharashtra through Public Pleader and 4 Ors.

M/S.Indian Spa and Wellness Association Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Mrs. Vijaya Ramchandra Gurav Vs Mr. Ramchandra a. Gurav