Dismissed

Gokuldham Residents Welfare Association Sector-I v. the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC17 Nov 2016PIL/61/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the petitioners' grievance regarding non-compliance with prior directions did not warrant maintainability of a second PIL, and dismissed the filing with liberty to take action against non-compliance.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; liberty reserved to petitioners to initiate appropriate action for non-compliance of directions.

Gokuldham Residents Welfare Association Sector-I Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

PIL 61-2015

¶2

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

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 61 OF 2015

¶4

Gokuldham Residents Welfare Association

¶5

Sector-I. .. Petitioners

¶6

V/s

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Mr. Sujit Kurup i/b Kurup Shivaji & Co. for the petitioners. Dr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate with Mr. D.V. Deokar, Mr. Pinakin Modi and Mr. Subodh Joshi i/b Parimal K. Shroff & Co. for respondent no.5.

¶10

Ms. Jyoti Sinha i/b Negandhi Shah & Himayatullah for respondent no.4.

¶11

Ms. Shobha Ajithkumar for the respondent Corporation. Mr. Milind More, AGP for the State.

¶12

CORAM: DR. MANJULA CHELLUR, CJ. & M.S. SONAK, J.

¶13

DATE : 17^th NOVEMBER 2016

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present PIL is only second in the series and ninth one as stated out by the learned counsel for the party respondent no.5.

¶16

According to the petitioners, in terms of para 2 of the PIL petition if read along with para 8 onwards and the order in earlier public interest litigation dated 17^th November 2011, his only

1 of 2

ABS

PIL 61-2015

grievance is with regard to non-compliance of the direction by the 5^th respondent with regard to reservation indicated in paras 2 and 4 of the said order at Exhibit “A”. He also contends that in spite of taking extension of time by order dated 13^th December 2012 as per Exhibit “B”, they have not complied with the undertaking so far.

¶21

If the entire public interest litigation in the present petition is pertaining to non-compliance with the directions referred to in the above two orders, we fail to understand how another public interest litigation is maintainable. The petitioners' counsel read to us the last sentence in the abovesaid order of 2011 indicating the liberty reserved to him. We are of the opinion the liberty to be exercised by the petitioners cannot be second public interest litigation. Therefore, we dispose of the PIL reserving liberty to the petitioners to take appropriate and suitable action for noncompliance of directions strictly in accordance with law.

¶22

(M.S. SONAK, J.) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶23

2 of 2

¶24

ABS

Gokuldham Residents Welfare Association Sector-I v. the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gokuldham Residents Welfare Association Sector-I v. the State of Maharashtra and 4 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

Vaibhav Vitthalrao Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rajkumar Shivnarayan Dube and Others Vs State Election Commission, Bombay and Others

Mr.Ghansham Chaganlal Jatolia and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and 7 Ors.

Shri. Rajendra Vasantrao Chavan Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ramesh Laxman Sawant and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Rural Development and Ors.

Manohar Narayan Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Urban Development and Ors.

Jayant Anandrao Balugade and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Dept. of Law and Judiciary and Ors.

Mohd. Mansoor Mohd. Atik Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Mr.Ghansham Chaganlal Jatolia and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and 7 Ors.

Shri. Rajendra Vasantrao Chavan Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Rajendra Vasantrao Chavan Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Sunil Haliram Mulwani and Ors. Vs Kolhapur Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner and Ors.

Shri. Tofik Rafik Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept. (I) and Anr.

Nandkumar B. Pawar and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.