The Bombay High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed under Article 226 challenging land permissions and redevelopment activities. The court held no public interest was involved.
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.
1/3
PILL 143 of 2015
Vat
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (L) No. 143 OF 2015
Mohd. Saleel Mahmood Shaikh and Ors. ….Petitioners Vs. The Chief Executive Officer SRA and Ors. .,..Respondents
None for the Petitioners
Mr. Arvind Aswami i/b. J.G. Reddy for Respondent Nos.1 and 14 Mr. Chetan Mhatre a/w. Devangi Gandhi i/b. Utangale & Co. for Respondent No.2
Mr. Prashant Nakati for Respondent Nos.6 & 7
CORAM : V. M. KANADE & SMT. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ
DATE : SEPTEMBER 8, 2016
P.C. :
“(a) That a Writ of Certiorari or Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other order and direction from this Hon'ble High Court be given calling upon the Respondents to produce
all relevant documents pertaining to the said land bearing
2/3
PILL 143 of 2015
CTS No. 151, 151 (p) 1 to 61, Village: Ghatkopar (West), Taluka : Kurla, Mumbai – 400 086 including adjoining CTS No. 152 to 155 and after going through the legality, validity and propriety of the same, set aside any order, permission or sanction granted to Respondent No.6;
(b) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to give direction to Respondent Nos.1,2 and 5 to examine the legality of the rehab building constructed by Respondent No.6 and ensure due compliance of the DCR rules and regulations and to submit detailed report in stipulated time period before this Hon'ble Court;
(c) That a Writ of Mandamus or Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other order and direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper b given to direct the concerned Respondents to initiate appropriate enquiry with regard to the illegality and fraud committed by Respondent Nos.6 and 7;
(d) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to revoke the LOI dated 17.01.2009 and 20.06.2009 issued to Respondent No.6 in respect of CTS No. 151, 151(p) 1 to 61, Village Ghatkopar (West), Taluka : Kurla, Mumbai – 400 086;
(e) This Hon'bl Court be pleased to direct the Respondent
3/3
PILL 143 of 2015
Nos. 1 to 4 and Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 to carry out joint measurement of CTS Nos. 151, 151 (part) 1 to 61, 152, 153, 154 and 155 and construct wall on the respective CTS boundaries.
(f) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No.6 to pat corpus fund and property tax as per SRA scheme.
(g) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the construction activities carried out by Respondent No.6 til the due compliance of DCR rules and regulations.”
SWAPNA S. JOSHI, J. V.M. KANADE, J.
Vaishali Tikam
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution involves a public interest.
Whether the respondents need to be directed to produce documents and examine the legality of rehabilitate buildings.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohd. Saleel Mahmood Shaikh and Ors.
The Chief Executive Officer SRA and Ors.
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
