Disposed

I. C. Welfare Women'S Association v. the State of Maharashtra and 20 Ors.

Bombay HC4 Apr 2016PIL/45/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a PIL regarding a Recreation Ground without adjudicating on the legality of challenged orders. The Court directed the respondent to seek development permission from the Mumbai Municipal Corporation (MMC) and serve notice on all parties before any construction, granting them time to object before the MMC decides.

What did the court decide?

The respondent must seek development permission from the Mumbai Municipal Corporation, serve notice to the petitioner and other parties, and cannot undertake any work for three weeks after the permiss

Mr.Amarendra Mishra for the Petitioner Mr.Rajiv Mane, AGP for the respondent Nos.1,3 and 4. Ms Trupti Puranik for the respondent No.2 Ms Kiran Bagalia for the respondent No.5 Mr.Ram Apte, Senior Counsel i/b Aruna Ghadge for the respondent No.8

1Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned AGP for the respondent Nos.1,3 and 4. We have also heard the learned counsel for the respondent No.5 and the learned senior counsel for the respondent No.8. We have also heard the learned senior counsel for the respondent Nos.9 to 21. The learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions states that in this petition, the petitioner is only pressing the prayer clauses (b) and (c). He states that the Recreation Ground is shown on the map annexed at page 52 is not a reservation in the sanctioned development plan but it is shown as a

Recreation Ground in the sanctioned layout. The learned senior counsel for the respondent No.8 states that the respondent No.8 will not carry on any construction on the Recreation Ground shown in the plan at page 52 unless the said respondent obtains a development permission from the Mumbai Municipal Corporation.

2We accept the aforesaid statement made by the respondent No.8. Therefore, as of today, the respondent No.8 cannot make any construction or make any development on the said plot shown as Recreation Ground. The issue whether construction can be made on the Recreation Ground or whether the layout can be amended need not be decided at this stage. The learned counsel for the respondent No.8 states that an application made by the respondent No.8 for grant of development permission for carrying out construction on the said Recreation Ground is pending. We accept the said statement.

3It will be open for the petitioner, the respondent No.5 and respondent Nos.9 to 21 to raise an objection to the pending application made by the respondent No.8 for permission to carry out development. There is some controversy whether any such application made by the respondent No.8 is still pending with the Mumbai Municipal Corporation. We make it clear that if such application made by the respondent No.8 is pending, the same cannot be decided by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation without taking into consideration the objections which may

be raised by the petitioner, the respondent No.5 and the respondent Nos.9 to 21. At this stage, the learned senior counsel for the respondent No.8 on instructions states that the respondent No.8 intends to submit a fresh proposal/application for grant of permission to carry out construction on the Recreation Ground. We accept the said statement.

4The respondent No.8 will have to give notice of filing such proposal to the petitioner, the respondent No.5 and the respondent Nos.9 to 21. Needless to add that without considering the objections which may be filed by the petitioner and the respondent No.5 as well as the the respondent Nos.9 to 21, the Mumbai Municipal Corporation shall not decide the application which may be made by the respondent No.8. Therefore, at this stage, this petition need not be kept pending.

(I)Prayer clauses (d) and (e) are not pressed by the petitioner. However, we make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the legality and validity of the orders which are subject matter of challenge in prayers (d) and (e). If any of the parties to the petition are aggrieved by the said orders, their remedy to challenge the said orders is expressly kept open;

respondent No.8 through its senior counsel that no construction will be carried out on the plot which is shown as Recreation Ground on the map on page 52 without obtaining prior development permissionfromtheMumbaiMunicipal Corporation and/or any other competent

Authority. The contention raised by the respondent no.8 that the Recreation Ground shown on the map at page 52 has ceased to be a Recreation Ground is kept open to be decided by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation or the appropriate Competent Authority;

(III)The learned senior counsel for the respondent No.8 states that the respondent No.8 may be permitted to erect fencing and/or tin shed which is allegedly destroyed by the petitioner. We are not going into the issue whether any such act has been done by the petitioner. We make it clear that the respondent No.8 shall not carry out the work of erecting fencing or tin shed without obtaining development permission from the Mumbai Municipal Corporation;

(IV)As and when such application is made by the respondent No.8 to the Mumbai Municipal Corporation for grant of development permission to develop the said plot including the work of erecting fencing or construction of a tin shed on the said plot, a notice of the said application shall be given by the respondent No.8 to the petitioner and the respondent No.5 as well as the respondent Nos.9 to 21 who shall

(V)We make it clear that the Mumbai Municipal Corporation shall not deal with the application which may be made by the respondent No.8 without satisfying itself that a notice of the said application as directed above is served by the respondent No.8 to the petitioner, the respondent No.5 and the respondent Nos.9 to 21. Needless to add that the objections, if any, raised by the said parties shall be considered by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation before deciding the application which may be made by the respondent No.8 for development permission on merits;

(VI)The order passed by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation on the application which may be made by the respondent No.8 shall be communicated to the petitioner and the respondent No.5 as well as the respondent Nos.9 to 21. If a permission is granted by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation to carry out development of any nature, such permission shall not be acted upon by the respondent No.8 for a period of three weeks from the date on which a communication recording grant of such permission is served to the petitioner, the respondent No.5 and the respondent Nos.9 to 21; (VII)All contentions raised by the parties to

I. C. Welfare Women'S Association v. the State of Maharashtra and 20 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

I. C. Welfare Women'S Association v. the State of Maharashtra and 20 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Security Contractors Welfare Association, Chandrapur, through Its President Prajyot Devidas Nale Vs State of Maha., through Its Secretary Home Dept., Mumbai and Others

Anandji Narayan Sawant Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Mr. Dilip Vishram Jadhav Vs Akhil Bhartiya Marathi Natya Parishad and 3 Ors.

Dinesh Naidu, Secretary Parivartan the Citizens Forum and Another Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary and 3 Others

Shri. Mohan Marotrao Karemore Vs Union of India Thr. Secretary and Others

Ashok Saremal Sanklesha Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 5 Ors.

Raja Basu and Anr. Vs Union of India and 4 Ors.

Prakash Rajaram Surve and Anr. Vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and 3 Ors.

Tariq Abdul Karim Parveen @ Tariq Parveen Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Prakash v. Patel and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Anandji Narayan Sawant Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Yashoda Dina Patil and 5 Others Vs Vijayshree Ahsok Mhatre

Mundhra Fiscal Services Private Limited Vs Grevek Investment and Finance Private Limited (Cin U65990MH1993PTC070326)

M/S Antony Waste Handling Cell Pvt. Ltd. (CIN-U90001MH2001PTC130485) Vs Amirali Gilani