Disposed

Daniel Lamuvel Naidu v. Slum Rehabilitation Authority and 4 Others

Bombay HC16 Nov 2016WP/1458/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court rejected the prayer for mandamus against a non-State firm but directed the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies to expeditiously dispose of the pending complaint filed by the petitioner, ensuring an opportunity of being heard is given to all parties.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies to dispose of the complaint within three months after affording opportunity of being heard to all parties.

Daniel Lamuvel Naidu Vs Slum Rehabilitation… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2016)

wp-1458.16

pmw

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1458 OF 2016

¶6

Mr. Daniel Lamuvel Naidu

¶7

… Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Ors.

¶10

… Respondents

¶11

Mr. Angad Giri for the Petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Abhijeet Patil i/by Mr. V.D. Patil for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. S.G. Surana i/by Mr. M.S. Surana for the Respondent Nos.4 and 5.

¶13

CORAM : A.S. OKA & ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.

¶14

DATE : 16^th NOVEMBER, 2016

¶15

P.C.

¶16

1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. The only substantive relief sought in this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is of issuing a writ of mandamus against the fifth Respondent which is a firm. It is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. However, annexures to the Petition and annexures to the reply filed by Respondent No.4 shows that Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (SRA) is seized of the matter. The letter dated 22^nd July, 2016 addressed by the Joint Registrar to the Respondent No.5 is annexed to the reply.

¶17

2 The aforesaid letter dated 22^nd July, 2016 records that the Joint Registrar is dealing with the complaint dated 20^th July, 2015 filed

¶18

1 of 2

¶19

2 wp-1458.16

¶20

by the Petitioner through his Advocate. It is not in dispute that the said complaint is not yet decided. Though no writ can be issued against Respondent No.5, we propose to direct the Joint Registrar to deal with the complaint and to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶21

3 Accordingly, we pass the following order :-

¶22

ORDER

¶23

(i) Prayer clause (a) is rejected only on the ground that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued against Respondent No.5.

¶24

(ii) We direct the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Eastern & Western Suburban) S.R.A, Mumbai to dispose of the complaint dated 20^th July, 2015 filed by the Petitioner through his Advocate in accordance with law. Complaint shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date on which an authenticated copy of this order is produced in the office of the Joint Registrar. Needless to add that complaint shall be disposed of only after giving an opportunity of being heard to all parties.

¶25

(iii) All contentions on merits are kept open.

¶26

(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J) (A.S. OKA, J)

¶27

2 of 2

Daniel Lamuvel Naidu v. Slum Rehabilitation Authority and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daniel Lamuvel Naidu v. Slum Rehabilitation Authority and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Bodhara Polyfab Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Bma Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kaberi Mondal

Precision Engineers and Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Ors. Vs L and T Finance Ltd.

Dr. Aditi Shailesh Deshpande Vs Dr. Shailesh Ramchandra Deshpande

Mr. Jagadeesa G. Chary Vs Nirmal Bang Securities Pvt. Ltd.

Dhaval Chauhan and Anr. Vs Chhotalal Narsidas Parmar (Since Deceased) and Ors.