Disposed

Sudhir Sitaram Gawde v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Jan 2016PIL/51/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a public interest litigation regarding unauthorized construction and lack of action on notices, the bench directed specific respondents to take action within a reasonable period. The court disposed of the petition, reserving rights to challenge the authority's decision, and clarified that new issues require a separate filing.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondent nos. 2, 6, and 7 to take action in accordance with law pursuant to notices within a reasonable period.

Sudhir Sitaram Gawde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Bombay HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

18-pil.51.2013.doc

1/3

nsc.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.51 OF 2013

¶6

Sudhir Sitaram Gawde ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharasthra and Ors. ....Respondents

¶7

Ms.S.I.Shah i/b Mr.Anand Poojari, for the Petitioner.

¶8

Mr.J.S.Saluja, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1, 5 to 9 and 12.

¶9

Mr.Vijay Patil, for the Respondent No.2.

¶10

Ms.Kavita Shah, for the Respondent Nos.11 and 13.

¶11

CORAM : V. M. KANADE & REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ.

¶12

DATE : 22^nd JANUARY, 2016

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

So far as prayer clause (a) in the PIL is concerned, the said

¶15

prayer does not survive since according to the learned counsel appearing on

¶16

behalf of the petitioner, the respondents have unauthorisedly constructed

¶17

the structure on the plots referred to in prayer clause (a). The second

¶18

18-pil.51.2013.doc

¶19

2/3

¶20

grievance is that the respondent nos.2, 6 and 7 have not taken any further steps pursuant to the notices issued by them dated 27^th July, 2012 and 3^rd August, 2012.

¶21

We direct the respondent nos.2, 6 and 7 to take action in

¶22

accordance with law pursuant to the notices issued by them within a reasonable period of time.

¶23

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.11

¶24

and 13 submitted that necessary permission has been granted and a report has been filed by the respondent no.6.

¶25

4. In view of this, PIL does not survive.

¶26

Reserving the rights of the PIL petitioner to challenge the

¶27

decision of the concerned Authority, PIL is disposed of.

¶28

It is clarified that so far as the other issues now raised by the petitioner in the additional affidavit are concerned, since no specific reliefs

¶29

18-pil.51.2013.doc

¶30

3/3

¶31

are claimed in this petition, the petitioner has a right to file a separate PIL

¶32

in respect of the issues which have been raised in the further affidavit dated

¶33

3^rd September, 2015.

¶34

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

¶35

V.M. KANADE, J.

Sudhir Sitaram Gawde v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhir Sitaram Gawde v. the State of Maharashtra and 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

Eco-Pro Bahu-Uddeshiya Sanstha through Its President Bandu S/O Sitaram Dhotre Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary Dept. of Energy Mumbai and 6 Others

Rajendra Purushottam Phanse Vs the State of Maharashtra, through the Chief Secretary, General Administration Dept and Ors.

Sanjay Dinanath Tiwari Vs Director General of Police (Anti Corruption) and 13 Ors.

Shri C.R.Jayasukin Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mr.Ashok S/O.Bansidhar Agarwal Vs the State of Maharshtra and Ors.

Shri. Balasaheb Baburao Jambhulkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri Vinod S/O Somaji Patel and 4 Others Vs Nagpur Improvement Trust, through Its Chairman 4 Others

Vinod Ghosalkar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Vasumant S.Sethi Vs Harendra Premji Shah

The State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors. Vs Shri Sontakke Sanjay Vishwanath and Ors.

Sanjay Dinanath Tiwari Vs Director General of Police (Anti Corruption) and 13 Ors.

Sahayak...a Socio-Legal and Educational Forum Vs the Stte of Maharshtra and Ors.

Amit Maru Vs the Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests

Catholic Resident Organization for Social Service Vs the Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai and Ors.