Disposed

Babu Kalappa Jagtap v. the State of Maharashtra and 4 Others

Bombay HC4 Jan 2016PIL/58/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Division bench dismissed a PIL fearing unauthorized Slum Rehabilitation Scheme on land held by Airport Authority of India. Court relied on submission that Airport Authority had not granted permission, disposing the matter while keeping locus standi objections open.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; Slum Rehabilitation Scheme cannot be implemented on land held by Airport Authority of India without its express written permission.

Babu Kalappa Jagtap Vs the State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2016)

ospil58

ssp

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

¶5

 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.58 OF 2015

¶6

Babu Kalappa Jagtap ...Petitioner
vs.
The State of Maharashtra
and others...Respondents

¶7

Mr.S.Upadhyay i/b Mr.A.M.Saraogi for the Petitioner
Ms Geeta Shastri, Addl. G.P for the respondent No.1
Mr.V.D.Patil for the respondent no.2

¶8

Ms Trupti Puranik for the respondent No.3
Mr.Rakesh Singh i/b M.V.Kini & Co. for the
respondent No.4

¶9

Mr.Chirag Balsara i/b Diamondwala & Co. for the
respondent No.5

¶10

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 C.V.BHADANG,JJ.
 DATE : JANUARY 4, 2016

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

1Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,
the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 and the
learned counsel for the respondent No.5. Even the
respondent Nos.2 and 3 are represented by their
learned counsel. This PIL is filed on the basis of
the apprehension that the respondent No.5 will be
allowed to implement a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme on
the land held by the Airport Authority of India.
Clauses 2 and 3 of the order dated 29th October 2015
read thus:

¶13

“(2)The learned counsel appearing for the
fourth Respondent states that the fourth

¶14

2 ospil58

¶15

Respondent has not granted any No Objection
Certificate to any one to implement a Slum
Rehabilitation Scheme on the land subject
matter of this Petition.

¶16

(3) We direct that unless there is a No
Objection Certificate validly issued by the
fourth Respondent, no steps shall be taken
for implementation of a Slum Rehabilitation
Scheme on the land subject matter of this
petition. Reply, if any, to be filed on or
before 11th December 2015.”

¶17

2There is an affidavit in reply filed by the
respondent No.5. The said respondent is allegedly
trying to implement a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme on
the land held by the Airport Authority of India. In
paragraph 31 of the affidavit in reply, it is stated
thus:

¶18

“31I say and submit that the abovementioned
PIL came up for hearing on 29th October 2015
before the division bench of this Hon'ble
Court when the Hon'ble Court after hearing
the Counsel appearing for the respective
Respondents and considering the statement
made by Airport Authority of India,
Respondent No.4 herein that they have not
granted any No Objection Certificate to
anyone to implement a slum Rehabilitation
Scheme on the land subject matter of this
petition directed that unless there is No
Objection certificate validly issued by the

¶19

ospil58

¶20

¶21

fourth Respondent, no steps shall be taken
for the implementation of a Slum
Rehabilitation on the said plot. It is
respectfully submitted that apprehension of
the petitioner that Slum Scheme will be
sanctioned on the said plot without NOC from
Respondent No.4, is cleared by the said order
dated 29th October 2015 passed by this Hon'ble
Court and the Public Interest Litigation can
be disposed of in terms of the said order...”

¶22

3Even in paragraph 26 of the affidavit in reply,
there is a specific assurance given that nothing
will be done by the respondent No.5 without
obtaining permission/approval of both the Airport
Authority of India and the Slum Rehabilitation
Authority.

¶23

4The learned counsel for the Airport Authority
of India on instructions states that the Airport
Authority of India has not granted any permission or
consent to the respondent No.5 or any other party
for implementation of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme on
the land subject matter of this petition which is
held by the said Authority. He further states that
in fact the said land is required by the said
Authority.

¶24

5In view of categorical statements made in
paragraphs 26 and 31 of the affidavit of the
respondent No.5 and in view of the aforesaid
statements made by the learned counsel for the

¶25

4 ospil58

¶26

Airport Authority of India, it is not necessary to
entertain this PIL. However, we make it clear that
the issue of locus of the petitioner to file the
present PIL is not examined by this Court and the
objections raised by the respondent No.5 to the
locus of the petitioner are expressly kept open.

¶27

6By accepting the statements of the respondent
No.5 in this affidavit and by accepting the
aforesaid statements made by the learned counsel for
the Airport Authority of India, we dispose of the
petition. Needless to state that the Slum
Rehabilitation Scheme/project cannot be implemented
on the land held by the Airport Authority of India
without express permission in writing of the Airport
Authority of India.

Babu Kalappa Jagtap v. the State of Maharashtra and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu Kalappa Jagtap v. the State of Maharashtra and 4 Others

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

Ramesh S/O Purushottamrao Mahajan Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Deptt. of Business Energy and Labour, Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Milun Saryajani through Editor Geetali Vinayak Mandakini Vs Pune Municipal Commissioner, Pune and Ors.

Vineet Dhanda Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sunil Brijlal Chaudhari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Syscom Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Shamim Ismail Khan and Anr. Vs Union of India through the General Manager, Central Railway Administration and Ors.

Cricket Association of Bihar Vs the Board of Control for Cricket in India and Another

Friends of Wadala East Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Mr. Kamod Shankar Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mr. Jeevanrao Vishwanathrao Gore Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shri. Kisan Shankar Sakpal and Ors. Vs the Panchayat Samiti, Mahad, through Block Development Officer and Ors.

Vishnu Babaji Rane Vs Municipal Commissioner and Anr.

Shaikh Mohd Shabbir Vs the State of Maharashtra and 14 Other

Ayurved Shikshan Mandals Dharmarth Ashtang Ayurved Rugnalaya, through Secretary, Dr. M. H. Paranjap Vs the Divisional Health Officer,, Divisional Office NO.3 (Health), Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr.