Dismissed

Dharma Dondu Bharam and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Mar 2016WP/7419/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition under Article 226 challenged an eviction order directing specific petitioners to transit accommodation. The High Court held there was no justification for non-shifting given eligibility for permanent accommodation and refused to suspend the scheme due to a dismissed stay application, dismissing the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Dharma Dondu Bharam and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Bombay HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

wp-7419/15.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 7419 OF 2015

¶4

Dharma Dondu Bharam and Others. ..Petitioners. Versus State of Maharashtra & Others. ..Respondents.

¶5

Mr. Rajendra Anbhule i/b Mr. Sudam Kale for the Petitioners. Mr. A. B. Vaghyani, Government Pleader with Mr. V. B. Thadani for the State.

¶6

Mr. D. R. More for Respondent No. 2 to 4.

¶7

Mr. A. G. Damle, Senior Counsel with Mr. J. G. Reddy i/b A. B. Desai for Respondent No. 5.

¶8

Mr. P. P. Kulkarni for the Applicant in C.A. No. 1988 of 2015.

¶9

Coram : Ranjit More & Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, JJ. Date : March 11, 2016 .

¶10

P. C. :

¶11

Heard learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have challenged the order dated 22^nd May 2015 passed by the Dy. Chief Officer-cum-Competent Authority of SRA, Pune whereby Petitioner Nos.1 and 20 to 45 were directed to vacate the premises in their possession and move themselves to the transit accommodation. The Petitioners have also sought suspension of the entire slum rehabilitation scheme.

1 / 4

patilsr

wp-7419/15.

Admittedly, except Petitioner Nos.2 to 19, all other Petitioners have been held eligible for the permanent alternate accommodations as per the cut-off date laid down under the earlier policy of the State Government. In our view, therefore there is no justification for Petitioner Nos.1 and 20 to 45 for non shifting to the transit accommodation inasmuch as they will get permanent alternate accommodations in due course of time.

¶16

Mr. Dipak More, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 submitted that Petitioner Nos. 4 and 16 never approached the Competent Authority for inclusion of their names in Annexure-II. He further submitted that insofar as Petitioner Nos.2, 3, 5 to 15, 17 & 19 are concerned, they were not held eligible for the permanent alternate accommodations and therefore their names are not included in Annexure-II; however, the policy of the Government has in the meanwhile undergone a change and now the cut-off date is 1^st January 2000, which was earlier 1^st January 1995. There is no dispute that these persons have preferred fresh applications to consider their eligibility to get permanent alternate accommodations and these applications are pending before the Competent Authority. Mr. More, Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 submitted

2 / 4

patilsr

wp-7419/15.

that eligibility applications of these persons would be decided within the period of four weeks from today. Statement is accepted. It is pertinent to note that as on today, no notice of eviction is issued to these Petitioners.

¶21

Be that as it may, it is clear from the record that about 16 months back 40 tenants have vacated the tenements on the subject land and shifted to the temporary transit accommodation. Therefore, granting any relief as claimed by the Petitioners will certainly prejudice those persons.

¶22

Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the clearance order issued in the present matter is subject matter of challenge in an appeal before the Slum Tribunal and on this ground the entire scheme deserves to be put under suspension. We do not find any merit in the submission inasmuch as the Petitioner had filed stay application before the Slum Tribunal and the same was dismissed by the Tribunal on 7^th March 2015 by passing a speaking order.

¶23

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition and the same is, therefore,

3 / 4

patilsr

wp-7419/15.

dismissed. Needless to state that interim stay stands vacated.

¶28

In view of the disposal of main writ petition, applications

¶29

taken out in the writ petition do not survive and the same are accordingly disposed of.

¶30

[Dr. (Smt.) S. S. Phansalkar-Joshi, J.]

¶31

[RANJIT MORE, J.]

¶32

4 / 4

¶33

patilsr

Dharma Dondu Bharam and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dharma Dondu Bharam and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Dhananjay Dadasaheb Jagtap Vs Kranti Jyoti Savitribai Phule Sanstha through Its Officer Shri Dilip B. Nimbarkar

Smt. Lata Nareshkumar Patel Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.

Sudhir Kuber Kshirsagar Vs the Chief Officer, Kurduwadi Municipal Council, Kurduwadi Solapur and Ors.

Appasaheb S/O. Bajirao Bondar Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary to Govt. of Maharashtra and Ors.

Jignasa J. Parikh Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors.

Pandit Shankar Kapadnis Vs the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad and Ors.