Disposed

Mr. Mahesh Vishwanath Chavan v. the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Aug 2016PIL/8/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of this PIL alleging inaction by the Solapur Municipal Corporation regarding illegal construction on reserved land. The court directed the Commissioner to examine a representation from the petitioner within three months, allowing for hearings before passing a speaking order.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to submit a detailed representation to the Commissioner; Commissioner to decide within three months after hearing parties.

Mr. Mahesh Vishwanath Chavan Vs the State of… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

22-pil-8-2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.08 OF 2014

¶4

Mahesh Vishwanath Chavan ...Petitioner vs.

¶5

The State of Maharashtra and Others ...Respondents

¶6

Mr. Mahesh Vishwanath Chavan, the Petitioner in person. Mr. A.I. Patel, AGP for Respondents-State. Mr. I.M. Khairdi, for Respondent No. 4. Ms. Neha Bhide, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 10 and 11. Mr. N.P. Shimpi, for Respondent Nos. 12 to 12(I).

¶7

CORAM : SHANTANU KEMKAR & MAKARAND KARNIK, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 10, 2016

¶8

P.C.:

¶9

. Through this Public Interest Litigation the Petitioner who is

¶10

present in person has alleged inaction on the part of Municipal Corporation, Solapur in not taking any action on his various complaints in regard to illegal and unauthorized construction raised by Respondent Nos. 12 to 12(I).

¶11

The grievance of the Petitioner is that the construction in

¶12

question has been raised on a reserved land. In respect of his contention, the Petitioner has placed on record various documents including written

1/3

Vishal Parekar

22-pil-8-2014

submission along with a Final Development Plan.

¶17

Today when the matter came up for hearing, it has been stated by the learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation that the Petitioner's grievance can be directed to be looked into by the Municipal Commissioner and in regard to that appropriate action will be taken.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid, as agreed by the learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of this Petition with liberty to the Petitioner to submit a detailed comprehensive representation with the relevant documents before the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Solapur within three weeks from today. On receipt of such representation, the Commissioner shall consider the same and take appropriate decision on it as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from the date of receipt of such representation.

¶19

Before taking decision as aforesaid, the Commissioner shall give opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner as also to Respondent Nos. 12 to 12(I).

¶20

Needless to say that the Commissioner shall take into

2/3

Vishal Parekar

22-pil-8-2014

consideration all the documents filed by the Petitioner and thereafter

¶25

pass a speaking order.

¶26

(MAKARAND KARNIK, J.)

¶27

(SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.)

¶28

3/3

¶29

Vishal Parekar

Mr. Mahesh Vishwanath Chavan v. the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Mahesh Vishwanath Chavan v. the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept and 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

Ujwala J. Patil Vs Slum Rehabilitation Authority and 4 Ors.

K. a. Qureshi Vs Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Ors.

Girish Raut Vs Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

The Kranti Shetkari Sang Vs the State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Subhash S/O. Vishwanath Bante and Others Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Dept. of Home Mantralaya Mumbai and Another

Mr. Shriprakash Neel Vs Th State of Maharashtra, through Chief Minister and Ors.

Mr. Yaad Husain and Ors. Vs the Reserve Bank of India, through Urban Banks Dept and Ors.

Balaji Shivajirao Jogdand Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

M/S. Shah and Chheda Realty Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shree Ganesh Reti Utpadak Sahakari Sanstha Mydt. Vs Jai Bhavani Reti Utpadak Co.Op. Soc. Ltd.

M/S. Technogem Consultants Pvt. Ltd. through Its Constituted Attorney Vs Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Shri. Dhanaji Dargu Chudmunge Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sadashiv Shenoy and Ors. Vs Jagannath Seena Shetty

Mrs. Sunita Balasaheb Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra through Govt. Pleader and Ors.