Dismissed

Lindwall Joseph Rodriques v. the State of Maharashtra and 3 Others

Bombay HC18 Mar 2016PIL/92/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner sought a direction that specific properties in Waras Lane, Worli Koliwada not be declared as slums. The Court rejected the PIL, holding that issuance of a declaration is a statutory right subject to recording satisfaction, and the aggrieved party has a statutory appeal remedy available.

What did the court decide?

The PIL containing the prayer to prevent issuance of a slum declaration is rejected.

Lindwall Joseph Rodriques Vs the State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2016)

pil-92.14

pmw

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

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.92 OF 2014

¶6

Lindwall Joseph Rodrigues … Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

Mr. Anand Mishra i/by A.M. Saraogi for the Petitioner. Mr. Hitesh Venegaonkar, AGP for the Respondent – State. Mr. S.P. Thorat, for the Respondent No.3. Ms. Trupti Puranik, for the Respondent No.4 – BMC.

¶11

CORAM : A.S. OKA & P.D. NAIK, JJ.

¶12

DATE : 18^th MARCH, 2016

¶13

P.C.

¶14

1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner.

¶15

Prayer clause (a) of this Petition purportedly filed in this Public Interest Litigation reads thus :-

¶16

“(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass appropriate writ, order and direction directing the Respondents not to consider and/or declare the properties being the property situated at Waras Lane, Worli Koliwada and more particularly, as per the chart annexed to the Petition to be slum in any manner whatsoever.”

(underline supplied)

1 of 2

2 pil-92.14

Even going by the averments made in the Petition, as of today, there is no declaration issued under Sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (for short “the said Act of 1971”). By filing this PIL, the Competent Authority under the said Act of 1971 cannot be prevented from exercising its statutory power under Sub-Section (1) of Section 4. Before taking action of issuing a declaration under SubSection (1) of Section 4 of the said Act of 1971, the Competent Authority is required to record satisfaction as provided under SubSection (1) of Section 4. Any person aggrieved by the declaration made under Sub-Section (1) of Section 4 has a remedy available of a statutory Appeal under Sub-Section (3) of Section 4 of the said Act of 1971. Therefore, this is not a fit case to entertain a PIL containing the aforesaid prayer at the instance of the Petitioner. The PIL is accordingly rejected. However, we make it clear that no adjudication is made about the status of the land subject matter of this Petition.

¶21

(P.D. NAIK, J ) (A.S. OKA, J )

¶22

2 of 2

Lindwall Joseph Rodriques v. the State of Maharashtra and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lindwall Joseph Rodriques v. the State of Maharashtra and 3 Others

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

Sau. Mangala W/O Shrikrishna Patil, President, Municipal Council, Malkapur and Anothers Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and 2 Othe

Shri C.R. Jaya Sukin Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Shri Appasaheb Babaji Patil and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Shri Appasaheb Babaji Patil and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Mr. Vikram Vishnu Garasia Vs the State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary, and 7 Ors.

Mr. Ramnagina Yadav and Another Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Others

Shri. Pravin Ganpatrao Kadam Vs Shri. Prakash Haribhau Londhe and Ors.

Bombay Lawyers Association Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Sicom Ltd. Vs the Official Liquidator of Shree Marathewada Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Crystal Builders and Developers Vs Dr. Mrs Shaileja Shridhar Paradkar and 4 Ors.

Sicom Ltd. Vs the Official Liquidator of Shree Marathewada Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd.

Bombay Lawyers Association Vs Union of India and Another

Jashwant B. Mehta and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Mahashtra and 3 Ors.

1. Narsimha Enterprises and Anr. Vs Medtronic Inc. and Ors.