Dismissed

Surendrakumar K Bajpai S/O.Krishnakumar B Bajpai v. State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC22 Sept 2016PIL/84/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court held in a PIL under Article 226 that no public interest was involved in challenging an order dated 22.2.2010 of the SRA High Power Committee. Noting gross delay in filing, the court declined to entertain the petition as a PIL, clarified that aggrieved persons should approach the competent authority, and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition as PIL disposed of; aggrieved persons to approach competent authority.

Surendrakumar K Bajpai S/O.Krishnakumar B… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

PILL. 98-15

¶2

VPH

¶3

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

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (L) No. 98 OF 2015

¶5

Surendrakumar K. Bajpai … Petitioner Vs.

¶6

State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

¶7

¶8

None for the Petitioner.

¶9

None for the Respondents.

¶10

¶11

CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & Mrs. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 22, 2016

¶12

PC.

¶13

None appears on behalf of the Petitioner and the Respondents. By this petition, which is filed as PIL, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner is seeking following reliefs:

¶14

“(a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to enquire into this case and pass appropriate orders;

¶15

(b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to order an enquiry against the High Power Committee of SRA for their order dated 20.2.2010 in which they revoked their previous order dated 25.9.2009 to Stop Work notice against the Developer though concrete evidence was placed on record before the High Power Committee

1 / 2

PILL. 98-15

of SRA;

(c) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to order an enquiry against the Addl Collector (Enc. / Reh.) for giving false statement before the High Power Committee of SRA as recorded in the second order of 30.3.2009 to protect the interests of the Developer.

¶20

(d) The petitioner adds this Hon'ble Court be pleased to frame appropriate guidelines and specifically direct all the administrative and pass speaking orders in cases pertaining to slum redevelopment.”

¶21

By this PIL, Petitioner is seeking to challenge the order passed by the High Power Committee dated 22.2.2010. In our view, it cannot be said that public interest is involved in this petition / PIL. If any person is aggrieved by the said order, remedy for him is to approach an appropriate forum. The said order is passed in 2010 and the present petition / PIL has been filed on 27.7.2015. Apart from maintainability of the petition / PIL, there is gross delay in filing this petition / PIL. We are, therefore, not inclined to entertain this petition as PIL. It is clarified that those persons who are affected by the said order dated 22.2.2010 may approach the competent authority. Reserving this right of such persons, PIL is disposed of.

¶22

Vinayak Halemath

¶23

2 / 2

Surendrakumar K Bajpai S/O.Krishnakumar B Bajpai v. State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendrakumar K Bajpai S/O.Krishnakumar B Bajpai v. State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinar Yashwant Sohoni Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Mr. Prakash Hanumant Tare Vs Mr. Anil D. Datar and Ors.

Vikrant Chandrahas Tawde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anil Damodar Thakare and Ors. Vs the Reserve Bank of India and Ors.

Shri Kaustubha Dattatraya Gokhale and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Nagrik Chetna Manch through Its Secretary Ms. Qaneez-E-Fatemah Sukhrani Vs the Commissioner, Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Save Mangroves and Navi Mumbai Existence (Samne), through President Vs State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Vishwas Laxman Aher and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Irrigation Dept and Ors.

Dinar Yashwant Sohoni Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Maheshbhai Hiralal Champneria Vs M/S Kotak Securities Limited

Mr. Prakash Hanumant Tare Vs Mr. Anil D. Datar and Ors.

Dattatray Narhar Rajopadhye Vs M/S. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Ors.

Mr. Adhiraj Dhairyashil Mane Vs Union of India, the Chief Secretary, Ministry of Rural Development and Ors.

Ankur Prabhakar Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.