The High Court of Bombay disposed of Public Interest Litigation No. 63 of 2014 and associated Chamber Summons. The Court held that the issue of unauthorized constructions did not survive as the Respondent Corporation had issued notices and action was being taken.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
PIL. 63-14
VPH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. 63 OF 2014 WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS No. 111 OF 2016
Society for Nature, and Animal and People … Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents And Adivasi Co-Operative Housing Society, Limited … Applicants ***
Mr. G. B. Solanke, for the Petitioner. Mr. U. S. Upadhayay, AGP for the Respondent – State. Ms. Trupti Puranik, for the Respondent – BMC. Ms. Padmaja Jadhav i/b P. G., for Respondent No. 3 – MHADA.
CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & Mrs. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 19, 2016 PC.
reply stating therein that the Corporation has issued notices for 69 unauthorised constructions / extensions under Section 351 of the
1 / 2
PIL. 63-14
MMC Act. It is further stated that out of 69 notices, 15 owners / occupants have removed structures on their own. It is further stated that so far as 54 structures are concerned, action is being undertaken for such structures under Section 488 of the MMC Act. In view of this, nothing survives in the PIL. PIL is therefore disposed of.
Sd/Sd/[Mrs. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, J.] [V. M. KANADE, J.]
Vinayak Halemath
2 / 2
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Society for Nature, and Animal
The State of Maharashtra
BMC
MHADA
Adivasi Co-Operative Housing Society, Limited
V. M. Kanade
Swapna S. Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
