Dismissed

Janhit Manch and Ors. v. Hon'Ble Minister for Information Broadcasting and Culture and Ors. and Harminder B Arora and 21 Ors.

Bombay HC16 Nov 2017NMW/96/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that a PIL regarding safety of Jogeshwari caves cannot expand to adjudicate individual rights to rehabilitation. Excluded occupyeurs must establish rights in a separate forum. The petitioners' notice of motion was disposed of and status-quo vacated.

What did the court decide?

Disposed of the Notice of Motion; vacated the order of status-quo granted on 17th May, 2017.

Janhit Manch and Ors. Vs Hon'Ble Minister for Information… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

nmw.96.17.6.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 96 of 2017 IN

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 2445 OF 2004

¶4

Harminder Bhupindersingh Arora & Ors. ...Applicants/Interveners

¶5

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN :

¶6

Janhit Manch & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Hon'ble Minister for Information Broadcasting & Culture & Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

Mr. Khan I/b Mr. D. V. Saroj for the Applicants/Interveners

¶8

Ms. Geeta Shastri, A.G.P for the Respondent-State

¶9

Mr. Joquim Reis, Sr. Advocate a/w Ms. Trupti Puranik for the RespondentCorporation

¶10

Mr. Chetan Mhatre I/b Utangale & Co. for the Respondent No.13

¶11

CORAM : DR. MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J. &

¶12

M. S. SONAK, J.

¶13

THURSDAY, 16^th NOVEMBER, 2017

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Reis for the respondent-

Corporation.

1/3

SQ Pathan

nmw.96.17.6.doc

Public interest litigation No. 2445 of 2004 came to be filed by pro bono publico for espousing the cause of the public i.e. for maintenance of Jogeshwari caves. As per the report of the Heritage Committee, there were several unauthorized constructions in and around Jogeshwari caves, which were damaged or had potential impact on the caves, therefore, Heritage Committee which was required to look into the stability and safety of the caves, opined that unauthorized constructions in and around Jogeshwari caves have to be removed. When there was snail's pace in the action, the public interest litigation came to be filed, way back in the year 2004. From 2004, till now, several meetings between the Corporation authorities and the alleged affected persons came to be made and certain process is evolved to identify the project affected persons. This has nothing to do with S.R.A Scheme or the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 of the State Government. This is evolved as a Scheme pertaining to Jogeshwari caves, as a process to remove the unauthorized constructions for the safety of the caves. Apparently, a list is prepared identifying the persons who are eligible for rehabilitation by giving alternate accommodation. Said process is entirely different and alien to the PIL with which we are concerned. If any person is

2/3

SQ Pathan

nmw.96.17.6.doc

not included in the list and if such person deserves to be included, the same cannot be decided in the PIL, since it becomes private interest of the said person to get the said rehabilitation. Irrespective of what business they are doing, and how they are alleged to be occupying, they are entitled to establish their right, if they have such right, before a different forum and not in the PIL. If any right has accrued to the interveners/applicants, if they are affected by the decision of the authorities or if there is contravention of the procedure laid down by the authorities, those persons are at liberty to seek their individual rights being declared in accordance with the procedure and the subject matter of public interest litigation cannot be expanded by trying the cause of each and every individual, who is said to be connected to unauthorized occupation.

¶25

With these observations, we dispose of the Notice of Motion

¶26

and we also vacate the order of status-quo granted on 17^th May, 2017.

¶27

M. S. SONAK, J. CHIEF JUSTICE

¶28

3/3

¶29

SQ Pathan

Janhit Manch and Ors. v. Hon'Ble Minister for Information Broadcasting and Culture and Ors. and Harminder B Arora and 21 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Janhit Manch and Ors. v. Hon'Ble Minister for Information Broadcasting and Culture and Ors. and Harminder B Arora and 21 Ors.

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

Shri. Babu Khandu Kad (Since Deceased through Lrs.) Vs the Divisional Commissioner, Pune and Ors.

M/S. Prisha Stone , through Its Authorised Signatory Viral Vishnu Thakkar Vs the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board and Ors.

M/S. Shri. Vigsons Aggregates Vs the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board and Ors.

Vijay Kisan Shinde Vs the Commissioner Thane Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Mr. Nehal S/O. Pravin Chandra Tanna Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shankar Dhondiba Lande and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Ministry of Revenue and Forest and Ors.