The Bombay High Court dismissed Public Interest Litigation No. 32 of 2015, holding that no public interest is involved since the petitioner is individually aggrieved by slum redevelopment actions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
spb/
27pil32-15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL SIDE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 32 OF 2015
Mr. Asad Ashraf Patel … Petitioner.
V/s.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents.
Mr. Ramchandra N. Kachave, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Anurag Gokhale, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Mr. Vijay Dinkarrao Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Ms. Tripti Puranik, Advocate for the -BMC.
CORAM : V. M. KANADE AND MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI,JJ.
DATE : 22nd AUGUST, 2016
P.C. :
1 In our view, prima facie, there is no public interest involved in this petition since the petitioner is aggrieved by the slums re-development effected by Respondent No.7.
2 Mr. Vijay Patil, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 - The Chief Executive Officer of SRA submits that 85% work of slums re-development is over and there is no public interest involved in this petition.
1/2
Borey
spb/
27pil32-15
3 We are satisfied that no public interest is involved in the present petition. In any case, if any slum dweller is aggrieved of the Slum Re-development Scheme he can always approach to the competent authority and/or to this Court.
4 Hence, the PIL is dismissed by reserving the rights of any aggrieved person to approach this court or to approach the appropriate authority.
(MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI,J.) (V. M. KANADE,J.)
2/2
Borey
Mr. Asad Ashraf Patel
State of Maharashtra
V. M. Kanade
Swapna Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
