Dismissed

Shri Parag Ranjitkumar Kotadia v. the State of Maharashtra and 10 Ors.

Bombay HC3 Aug 2016PIL/60/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a PIL under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking cancellation of permissions for redevelopment of a property, investigation into offences, and a declaration that Section 197 CrPC was not applicable. The court held that no public interest existed as the petitioner made no enquiry before filing and aggrieved parties have other remedies.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shri Parag Ranjitkumar Kotadia Vs the State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2016)

1/3

PILL 53 of 2016

Vat

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

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST INTERST (L) No. 53 OF 2016

¶6

Shri Parag Ranjitkumar Kotadia ….Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. ….Respondents ******

¶7

None for the Petitioner Mr. Bharat Mehta, for Respondent No.1 - State Mr. Anand Girl for Respondent No.2 Mr. Vijay Patil for Respondent Nos. 4 & 6 Mr. Satish Kamat for Respondent No.7

¶8

¶9

CORAM : V. M. KANADE & M.S. SONAK, JJ.

¶10

DATE : AUGUST 3, 2016

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

None appears on behalf of the Petitioner.

¶13

The Petitioner has filed this PIL under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶14

India, seeking the following reliefs.

¶15

“a) That, the Respondent Nos. 1, 9 and 10 be ordered or directed

¶16

to cancel, rescind and/or revoke the permissions or sanctions and/or order for Annexure -II, allotment letters, LOI, IOA and CC in or upon the suit property i.e. Patel Chawl SRA CHS (Proposed) for redevelopment of property bearing CTS No. 172, 172/1 to 34 situate

¶17

2/3

¶18

PILL 53 of 2016

¶19

at Village Bandivali, Taluka - Andheri (MSD) more particularly near Jogeshwari Railway Station, Jogeshwari (West), Mumbai – 400 102.

¶20

b) Direct the Respondent Nos. 1,9 and 10 to investigate as per the complaint filed in this Public Interest Litigation by the Petitioner under the monitoring of this Hon'ble Court.

¶21

c) Direct the Respondent Nos. 1, 9 and 10 to give the status report of its investigation as per the complaint stated in this Public Interest Litigation.

¶22

d) Direct the Senior Inspector of Amboli Police Station who is Respondent No.9 to investigate the complaint as per the orders U/s. 156(3) issued by the 66^th M.M. Court, Andheri Division for the offence of cheating, mus-appropriation and forgery committed by Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 and 11 as stated in this Petition.

¶23

e) That it be declare that the provision of Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code for obtaining sanction for prosecution of the government servants is not applicable to any official employees of Respondent Nos. 2 to7 ”

¶24

The Petitioner has not annexed any documents to the petition. It is obvious

¶25

3/3

¶26

PILL 53 of 2016

¶27

that the PIL has been filed without making any enquiry with the concerned authorities. We are satisfied that there is no public interest involved in this PIL since the aggrieved parties can very well approach to the Court or Forum, which is available to them. Hence, PIL is dismissed.

¶28

M.S. SONAK, J.

¶29

V.M. KANADE, J.

¶30

Vaishali Tikam

Shri Parag Ranjitkumar Kotadia v. the State of Maharashtra and 10 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shri Parag Ranjitkumar Kotadia v. the State of Maharashtra and 10 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sk. Bashir Sk. Khudbuddin and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Help Association(Ngo) and Anr. Vs Government of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Tushar Guru Salien Vs State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Suraj Datta Kedari Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary Secretary and Ors.

Aapli Mansa Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Jayashree Ramakant Khadilkar-Pande and Anr. Vs Union of India through the Secretary Dept. of Agriculture and 36 Ors.

Mr. Sayyed Yusuf Afroz Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sachin Punjaram Borde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

The State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Ors. Vs Dr. Smt. Hemalata Balkrishna Hankare

S. N. Baheti and Ors. Vs Bank of Rajasthan and Ors.

Vinod Mohanlal Jain Vs the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Afak Anwar Mandaviya Vs Mumbai Auto Rikshw Mens Union and 2 Ors.

I.S Khan Vs the Vice President and 4 Ors.

Anant N. Joshi Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Chief Secreatary and 4 Ors.