Disposed

Rais Kasam Shaikh v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC30 Sept 2016PIL/91/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a resolution and letter under Article 226. The High Court held that the petitioner must exhaust remedies under Section 520B of the Municipal Corporation Act. The court directed the State Government to dispose of the matter within two months and disposed of the petition without adjudicating the merits of the challenge.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the State Government to dispose of the matter within two months; petition disposed of.

Rais Kasam Shaikh Vs Municipal Corporation of… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2016)

skc

2-PILL-93-16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (L) NO. 93 OF 2016

¶7

Mr. Rais Kasam Shaikh .. Petitioner versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Anr. .. Respondents

¶8

Mr. Naryan Sahu i/b. Mr. Santosh Pawar for Petitioner. Mr. S. S. Pakale with Ms Trupti Puranik for Corporation. Mr. M. A. Sayyed – AGP for Respondents – State.

¶9

CORAM: DR. MANJULA CHELLUR, C. J. AND M. S. SONAK, J. DATE : 30 SEPTEMBER 2016

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

1] The petitioner has approached this court seeking the following reliefs as claimed in the writ petition:

¶12

“(a) that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in nature of certiorari or any other appropriate orders / directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and call for the records and proceeding of the Respondent No. 1 in connection with the impugned resolution dated 23^rd August 2016 and the impugned letter dated 26^th July 2016 at Exhibit “B” hereof, and after examining the legality and validity of the impugned resolution and impugned letter be pleased to quash and set aside the same;

¶13

(b) that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate orders / directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and declare the impugned resolution dated 23^rd August 2016 and the impugned order dated 26^th July 2016 at Exhibit “B” hereof, are illegal and unconstitutional and be pleased to quash and set aside the same;

1 of 2

skc

2-PILL-93-16

( c) that pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an order directing the Respondents not to act upon and/or take any steps and/or in any manner implement the impugned resolution dated 23^rd August 2016;

¶19

(d ) for interim and ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayers (c) above;

¶20

(e) for costs; and

¶21

(f) for such other and further reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper.”

¶22

2] The alleged exercise of power by the respondent authorities seems to be under Section 53 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act having regard to power of the State Government to suspend or rescind any resolution or order of the corporation or any other authority under this Act envisaged under Section 520B, we are of the opinion that before we exercise judicial review in a public interest litigation, the party must exhaust the remedial provisions under the Act as indicated under Section 520B.

¶23

3] Once representation is made having regard to the nature of lis raised in the writ petition, we direct the respondents – State Government to dispose of the matter within two months from the date of receipt of representation along with the copy of this order.

¶24

4] Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶25

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶26

chandka

¶27

2 of 2

Rais Kasam Shaikh v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rais Kasam Shaikh v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 2 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

Govinda S/O. Kashiram Gawande Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Chief Secretary Dept. of Revenue and Forest Mantralaya Mumbai and Others

Dr. Swapnil Kumaarr Alias Swapnil Vinaykrao Kokate Vs Union of India Thr. the Ministry of Skill Development and Enterpreeuship (Msde) and Another

Amol S/O Hansraj Khante Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary Department of Transport, Mumbai and Others

Dr. Anjan Kumar Chatterjee S/O Late Major Hari Mohan Chatterjee Vs the State of Maha. through the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur City, Nagpur and Others

Society for Fast Justice and Anr. Vs the State F Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Jugal Bhiku Patel and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mr. Vijay Krishna Kumbhar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Jagdish S/O. Vasant Patil Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Inception Media LLP Vs Star India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Goldmine Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mohd. Hussein Ahmed Miya Merchant and Anr.

Santosh Sahni and Anr. Vs Parikshet Sahni

Masood Ansari Vs Stae of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sarjerao Ramchandra Waghmare and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Bhimraj Suresh Mahale Vs Smt. Vidya Bal and Anr.