This writ petition challenged a notice requiring surrender of structure within 48 hours and threatened demolition under the Maharashtra Slum Act. The court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the petition, dismissing it accordingly.
Allow withdrawal of Petition and dismiss Petition as withdrawn.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
908-W.P [L] No. 2082-2017
1
Shailaja
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION [L] NO. 2082 OF 2017
Jayantibhai Hirjibhai Shah ] Petitioner Vs. Dy. Collector [Encroachment & Removal] ] Competent Authority & Ors. ] Respondents
Mr. Makarand M. Kale i/b M.P. Vashi & Associates, for petitioner. Mr. Kunal Bhange, for respondents No. 2 and 3. Ms. Jyoti Jadhav, A.G.P, for respondents No. 1 and 4.
CORAM : R.G. KETKAR, J. DATE : 4th AUGUST, 2017.
P.C .
Heard Mr. Kale, learned Counsel for petitioner, Mr. Bhanage, learned Counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 and Ms. Jadhav, learned A.G.P, for respondents No.1 and 4 at length.
2 908-W.P [L] No. 2082-2017
taken forcibly and the same will be demolished by exercising powers u/s 38 of the Act and the amount will be recovered from the petitioner.
3 908-W.P [L] No. 2082-2017
alternate accommodation alloted to them. He also assured that he will give inspection of sanctioned plan to Mr. Kale and respondents No.2 and 3 will give inspection of Shop proposed to be alloted to the petitioner between 3 and 5 p.m today (i.e 03/08/2017.)
4 908-W.P [L] No. 2082-2017
concession will be only in the present case and it may be clarified that the same shall not be cited as a precedent. Statements made by Mr. Bhanage on instructions are recorded.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioner is justified in withdrawing the writ petition issued under Article 226 challenging the coercive action notice.
Whether the High Court shall allow the withdrawal of the petition with the petitioner not appearing personally.
Whether the notice dated 1st August 2017 calling for surrender of structure within 48 hours is to stay in view of the stay on appeal under Section 35 (3) of Act.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Jayantibhai Hirjibhai Shah
Dy. Collector [Encroachment & Removal] Competent Authority
M/s. Castel Infrastructure Engineering Co.
Competent Authority & Ors.
R.G. KETKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
