Disposed

Sarang Seva Sanstha v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC10 Jun 2016WP/382/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging allotment of site for a pay-and-use public toilet without considering the petitioner's proposal. The court directed the competent authority to consider the pending proposal within two weeks and dispose of it expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Municipal Corporation to consider the Petitioner's proposal within two weeks and take an appropriate decision expeditiously.

Sarang Seva Sanstha Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 4 Ors. — Bombay HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

19-wp-382-2015

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.382 OF 2015

¶4

Sarang Seva Sanstha ...Petitioner vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Others ...Respondents

¶5

Mr. A.G. Damle, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. H.P. Ghadigaonkar, for the Petitioner.

¶6

Mrs. Geeta Joglekar, for the Respondent-BMC.

¶7

CORAM : SHANTANU KEMKAR & MAKARAND KARNIK, JJ. DATE : JUNE 10, 2016

¶8

P.C.:

¶9

The grievance of the Petitioner is that its proposal in respect of “ Pay and Use Public Toilet ” under new fly over at CST-LBS Road, Cross-Kurla junction, Kurla(w), Mumbai though was pending but without considering that proposal, Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have granted that site for being built and operated by Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. It has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that Respondent No. 4 has constructed and Respondent No. 5 is operating the said Pay and Use Toilet.

1/2

Vishal

19-wp-382-2015

In the circumstances, since the construction is already

¶14

over and its use has also been started, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 may be directed to consider the Petitioner's proposal for allotment of any other appropriate site to the Petitioner of which a fresh proposal will be submitted by the Petitioner within two weeks.

¶15

Having regard to the aforesaid limited prayer, we dispose of this Petition by directing the competent authority of Municipal Corporation to consider the proposal as may be submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner within two weeks and take appropriate decision on it as per its policy and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Needless to mention, we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy.

¶16

With the aforesaid direction, Petition stands disposed of.

¶17

The parties to act on the authenticated copy of the order.

¶18

2/2

¶19

Vishal

Sarang Seva Sanstha v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarang Seva Sanstha v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 4 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

Ms Pilloo D. Broacha and Ors. (Senior Cityzen) Vs Muncipal Corpn. of Gr. Mumbai and Ors.

Jagdish Dattatraya Shet Vs Capt.Percy Master

Sandeepani Vidya Niketan Sanchalit and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vishnu Vitthal Karampuri Vs Solapur Municipal Corporation (Smc) and Ors.

Lopesh Shantilal Vora Vs Union of India and Ors.

Vishnu Vitthal Karampuri Vs Solapur Municipal Corporation (Smc) and Ors.