Disposed

Bhrashtachar Nirmulan Va Manav Adhikar Samittee, Nanded Thr. Its Secretary and Others v. Secretary, Urban Development Department, Delhi and Others

Bombay HC14 Jan 2016WP/6053/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition regarding entitlement to funds under BSUP Scheme. Court dismissed the petition by directing parties to a fact-finding inquiry and reshuffling the representation to the state authority.

What did the court decide?

Direction to tender representation to the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Maharashtra; direction to authorities to conduct an inquiry and issue directions within four months.

Bhrashtachar Nirmulan Va Manav Adhikar… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

wp605314.odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6053 OF 2014

¶4

Bhrashtachar Nirmulan Va Manav Adhikar Samittee, Nanded & others

¶5

Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of India, New Delhi and others Respondents

¶8

Mr.S.R.Choukidar, advocate for petitioners Mr.S.B.Deshpande, Assistant Solicitor General for Respondent No.1.

¶9

Mr.S.K.Kadam, A.G.P. for Respondent No.2. Mr.A.B.Kadethankar, advocate for Respondent No.3. Mr.M.V.Deshpande, advocate for Respondent No.4.

¶10

CORAM : R.M.BORDE &

¶11

A.I.S.CHEEMA, JJ. DATE : 14th January, 2016

¶12

PER COURT:

¶13

1 Petitioners claim their entitlement in respect of certain amount released by the Central Government under Basic Services to Urban Poor (BSUP) Scheme in favour of Municipal Corporation, Nanded.

¶14

2 Petitioners contend that they have constructed tenements under the scheme and are entitled to receive certain amount as per the policy framed by the Central Government.

¶15

3 The contentions raised by petitioners, in the instant petition, have been seriously controverted by the Municipal

¶16

{2}

¶17

wp605314.odt

¶18

Corporation and it is contended that the amount is not payable to the petitioners and whatever amount payable is only in respect of expenses incurred by the individuals in carrying out construction under the scheme.

¶19

4 We do not propose to go into factual controversy involved in the matter. It would be apt to relegate the petitioners to fact finding authority. We deem it appropriate to direct petitioners to tender a comprehensive representation to the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Maharashtra. If petitioners tender comprehensive representation to the aforesaid authority, the concerned Secretary himself or through any other officer, shall cause an inquiry/investigation in the matter and after extending an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned, shall issue appropriate directions. Petitioners undertake to tender representation within a period of six weeks from today. On receipt of the representation, the Secretary himself or through any other delegated officer, may take appropriate decision in the matter, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of representation.

¶20

5 With the directions as above, writ petition stands disposed of.

A.I.S.CHEEMA

JUDGE

R.M.BORDE

JUDGE

adb/wp605314

Bhrashtachar Nirmulan Va Manav Adhikar Samittee, Nanded Thr. Its Secretary and Others v. Secretary, Urban Development Department, Delhi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhrashtachar Nirmulan Va Manav Adhikar Samittee, Nanded Thr. Its Secretary and Others v. Secretary, Urban Development Department, Delhi and Others

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

Sudhir Vishwanath Shinde Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Murud Nagar Panchayat Sangharsh Samiti, Murud and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jai Matadi Mahila Bachat Gut Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Jafar Salar Patel Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Dhanraj Mahadu Dalvi Vs Ahmedkhan Mehetab Khan Pathan and Ors.

Nana Shrirang Nipunge Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others