The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the detention of the petitioner's Tapari. The Court held that no case was made out for the claimed relief as the petition was devoid of merit and the petitioner had stopped his business after the seizure.
No prayer for compensation was granted; the writ petition was dismissed.
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.
1 WP 710 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Writ Petition No. 710 of 2008
Coram: R.D. DHANUKA & SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ. Date : 23 AUGUST 2017
2 WP 710 of 2008
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.D. Dhanuka, J.):
3 WP 710 of 2008
for removal of encroachment was undertaken. On 18 February 2005 while undertaking such drive a Pan Tapari of the petitioner on four-wheeler cart was found touching the wall of Bank of Maharashtra and thus the petitioner was asked to remove the said pan Tapari . The petitioner instead of removing the said Tapari made an attempt to make assault on the then Administrator of the respondent No.2. Said Pan Tapari was thus seized. Respondent No.2 has denied that the said Pan Tapari was seized with material as alleged and claimed by the petitioner. It is the case of the respondent No.2 that since the petitioner was encroacher in violation of the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act and had taken law into is hand, the respondent No.2 in exercise of statutory obligation had seized the said Tapari .
(supra) relied upon by the petitioner is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel that various directions were given by the Supreme Court to implement the policy of 2009 framed by the State Government. He submits that
4 WP 710 of 2008
the said judgment would not assist the case of the petitioner since the petitioner has filed this petition in 2008 alleging the seizure of Pan Tapari in the year 2005. There is no rejoinder filed by the petitioner to the said affidavit-in-reply.
Sd/- Sd/- (SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.) (R.D. DHANUKA, J.)
rsl
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for the alleged illegal detention of his Tapari by Respondent No.2.
Whether the petitioner has made out a case for any relief in this writ petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai & OthersDistinguished¶3
Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai & Others, 2013(6) ALL MR 480 (S.C.)
Ankush s/o Deorao Fatangade
The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Urban Housing Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai
The Administrator, City & Industrial Development Corporation, Aurangabad
R.D. Dhanuka
Sunil K. Kotwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
