Dismissed

Vidyasagar Dube v. the Commissioner Mcgm and 6 Ors.

Bombay HC15 Jun 2018PIL/8/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL, the petitioner challenged development permission granted to Respondent No. 6 due to alleged non-compliance of condition no. 16. The court observed the condition was complied with belatedly, noting interest was charged and security forfeited by the Authority. The court held not to take separate action for delay and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The court dismissed the petition and expressed no inclination to proceed further as the grievance was redressed.

Vidyasagar Dube Vs the Commissioner Mcgm and 6 Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

906-pil-8-2017

¶2

1/2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 8 OF 2017

Vidyasagar Dube

.. Petitioner

VERSUS

The Commissionner (MCGM) & Ors.

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

….

¶10

Mr. Anil D'souza for Petitioner. Mr. Anil Shastri-AGP for State.

¶11

Mr. Bhavin Gada I/b M/s. Harakhchand & Co. for Respondent No.6. Mr. Arsh Mishra a/w Ms. Khushboo Agarwal I/b M.V. Kini & Co. for Respondent No. 5. Mr. Sagar Patil for MCGM.

¶12

….

¶13

CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.

¶14

DATE : 15 JUNE, 2018

¶15

P.C. :-

¶16

Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. By

¶17

this Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner is challenging the development permission granted in favour of Respondent No. 6. Challenge is on the ground that Respondent No. 6 has not complied with condition no. 16 of the Development permission.

Shubham

906-pil-8-2017

2/2

The learned Counsel for the petitioner placed on record the communication dated 11^th September, 2017 by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai to Respondent No. 6 along with the possession receipt. The same are taken on record. The said document shows that the condition no. 16 of building permission has been complied with by Respondent No. 6, though belatedly. The learned Counsel for the BMC does not dispute this fact.

¶22

The learned Counsel for the petitioner however submits that the said condition ought to have been complied three years back and there is no explanation for that. The learned Counsel for the BMC in this regard submits that they have already charged interest to Respondent No. 6 and have forfeited its security for the delay. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to take separate action for delay in complying with the said condition no. 16.

¶23

The grievance raised in the petition stands redressed and we are not inclined to proceed with the matter. The petition is dismissed.

¶24

[SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]

¶25

Shubham

Vidyasagar Dube v. the Commissioner Mcgm and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vidyasagar Dube v. the Commissioner Mcgm and 6 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

Belapur Parali Railway Pravasi Seva Sanstha through Its Secretary Ritesh Vijay Kumar Bhandari Vs the Union of India and Others

Parvez Razak Darvesh vs Dilawar Daud Gaonkhadkar and Ors.

Love Ramsingh Chavhan, Yavatmal Vs State of Maharashtra, through Sub Division Officer, Yavatmal and Others.

Rahul S/O Adhikaranji Saoji and Another Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept. Mumbai and Others

Dhanraj S/O Shrawan Giri and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mumbai and 2

Capt. Haresh Gaglani (Retd.) Vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and 3 Ors.

Shri Gajanan S/O Chandrabhan Hadole Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Shri. Suryakant @ Suraj S/O Gajananrao Lolage Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary Public Work Dept., Mumbai and Others

Dhairyasheel Arjun Pansare Vs Additional Collector, Gram Panchayat, Pune and Ors.

Commercial Co-Operative Bank Ltd. , Kolhapur , through Its Authorized Signatory Vs Sou. Vanita Shrirang Kamble and Anr.

Commercial Co-Operative Bank Ltd. , Kolhapur , through Its Authorized Signatory Vs Shri. Amarjeet Dattatraya Bhopale and Anr.

Retd. Acp-Shinde Sarjerao Mahadev Vs Governor - Reserve Bank of India and 7 Ors.

Hanumanta Adappa Dakeri and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. and Soni H. Dekery and 2 Ors. (Applicants)

Mrs. Sangita Balkrishna Bagwale Vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Ors.