Disposed

Maria R. D'Costa v. the Mumbai Municipal Corporation and 36 Ors.

Bombay HC24 Jun 2016WP/1021/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition concerning eviction eligibility under a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, directing the Competent Authority to decide the matter afresh on merits without relying on the High Power Committee's interim conclusions.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; Competent Authority directed to decide the issue afresh on merits based on the High Power Committee's remand order.

Maria R. D'Costa Vs the Mumbai Municipal Corporation and… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

suresh

¶2

8-WP-1021.2014.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1021 OF 2014

¶4

Maria R. D'Costa .... Petitioner Vs. The Mumbai Municipal Corporation & Others .... Respondents

¶5

Mr. Parmeshwar Bhise i/by Mr. Rakesh Agrawal for the Petitioner.

¶6

Mr. Vijay D. Patil for the Respondent No.3. Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar i/by Mr. Yogesh Bandal for the Respondent No.5.

¶7

Mr. Madhur S. Surana for the Respondent Nos.12 & 24.

¶8

CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & M.S. SONAK, JJ.

¶9

DATE : JUNE 24, 2016

¶10

P.C:

¶11

In the event the Competent Authority comes to the conclusion that the respondent Nos.6 to 37 are not eligible to occupy the permanent alternate accommodation allotted to them under a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, then, it would be open for the Competent Authority to issue a direction for eviction of these respondents. We have no reason to doubt that the Competent Authority will follow the due process of law and

¶12

Page 1 of 2

¶13

suresh 8-WP-1021.2014.doc

¶14

while coming to the above conclusion it will also give an opportunity to the petitioner to place any documents or her version. In such circumstances, when the only grievance of the petitioner is taken care of, we dispose of this writ petition.

¶15

We dispose it of also because Mr. Madhur Surana states that the writ petition was filed when there was an order of the Competent Authority holding some of the private respondents as ineligible and against such an order they approached the High Power Committee. The High Power Committee has set aside that order of the Competent Authority and the matter was remanded to the Competent Authority again for a fresh decision. In the light of such an order of the High Power Committee, presently these respondents are eligible. We direct that while deciding the case, the Competent Authority shall not be influenced by any tentative or prima facie conclusion of the High Power Committee. The matter must be decided afresh and on merits, so also in accordance with law. All contentions are kept open.

¶16

(M.S. SONAK, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶17

Page 2 of 2

Maria R. D'Costa v. the Mumbai Municipal Corporation and 36 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maria R. D'Costa v. the Mumbai Municipal Corporation and 36 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Murlidhar Teckchand Gandhi and 5 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Sajid Ali Abid Ali Vs the Honble Chief Minister, and 3 Ors.

Lilahi Mehboob Ansari Vs the Hon'Ble Chief Minister and 3 Ors.

Oslen Austin Dsilva and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary and Ors.

Goswami Tribhangiraiji Murlidharji Alias Shri Goswami Shyamsunderji Murlidharji and 5 Ors. Vs Chairman/Secretary Shrii Vallabh Shopping Complex Premises Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. and 4 Ors.

Mr. Mehboob Ali Humza and 5 Ors. Vs District Sub-Registrar (3), Mumbai and 3 Ors.