Disposed

Perumal Chinna Thambi v. the State of Maharashtra and 9 Ors.

Bombay HC21 Nov 2018PIL/29/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice Karnik disposed of the PIL joined with another pending PIL by noting that the High Powered Committee was examining records and directing the State to initiate eviction proceedings against persons occupying allotted tenements twice under the SRA scheme.

What did the court decide?

All issues kept open; Petitioner invited to join PIL No. 75 of 2015; PIL disposed of.

Perumal Chinna Thambi Vs the State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

pil 29.18.doc

¶2

Urmila Ingale

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 29 OF 2018

¶6

Perumal Chinna Thambi .. Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents

¶7

Mr.A.Kaushik I/b Kaushik & Co., for the Petitioner. Mr.Vijay D.Patil, for Respondents No. 3. Mr.Ram Ugrah Singh, for Respondent No. 10. Smt.Geeta Shastri, Addl. G.P. for State.

¶8

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL, CHIEF JUSTICE & M.S.KARNIK, J.

¶9

DATE : 21^st NOVEMBER, 2018

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

. The Petition relates to the Slum Rehabilitation

¶12

Scheme in Malad area in respect of the alleged illegality in the slum rehabilitation scheme and while raising this issue, the Petitioner is said to be member of Respondent No. 9 - Society. Learned AGP submits that already an exhaustive judgment has been delivered by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : Swatanter Kumar, C.J. and S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) in Public

¶13

1/3

¶14

pil 29.18.doc

¶15

Interest Litigation No. 156 of 2006 and Suo Moto Writ Petition (PIL) No. 6 of 2007 on 17/09/2009. Under the said judgment directions were issued to High Powered Committee constituted by the State. By this judgment, directions were issued to the effect that the Committee upon inquiry and examination of the relevant records shall record its opinion. Further directions were also given by the Division Bench. PIL No. 75 of 2015 which was heard today in the first session is also pending on similar issue. Learned AGP appearing for the State submitted that the Committee is looking and examining the record. In PIL No. 75 of 2015, today we passed following order.

¶16

“ Learned Counsel appearing for the SRA states that more than 13,000 persons have taken disadvantage of the SRA scheme by occupying the allotted tenements twice. The proceedings therefore are required to be initiated against them for eviction.

¶17

Learned AGP shall take instructions from the Deputy Collectors of the different zones having jurisdiction to initiate such proceedings and submit the report before this Court.

¶18

Stand over to 05/12/2018 for directions.”

¶19

2/3

¶20

pil 29.18.doc

¶21

If the Petitioner desires, he may join PIL No. 75 of

¶22

2015 by filing appropriate application. It would be looked into on its own merits.

¶23

Keeping all issues open, Public Interest Litigation is

¶24

disposed of.

¶25

(M.S.KARNIK, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶26

3/3

Perumal Chinna Thambi v. the State of Maharashtra and 9 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Perumal Chinna Thambi v. the State of Maharashtra and 9 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Suresh Annappa Gadge Vs the Renuka Sugars Ltd, Ganganagar, Ichalkaranji and Ors.

Shri. Shirish Chimanrao Bhujbal Vs Pune Municipal Corporation, and Anr.

Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage through Mrs Shveta Kothavale Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Urban Land Development Dept. and Anr.

Shri. Suresh Annappa Gadge Vs the Renuka Sugars Ltd, Ganganagar, Ichalkaranji and Ors.

Mr. Sapan Shrivastava and Anr. Vs Collector Thane and Ors.

Vinod Amolakchand Gandhi Vs Dilip Mansukhlal Gandhi and Others

Santosh Vitthal Purhe and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sagar Navnath Tanpure and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mr. Sanjay Garg Vs Municipal Corp. of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

Rajesh Kumar Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohd. Mushtaq Moosa Tarani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The Bombay Environment Action Group Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. and Mumbai Railway Vikas Corporation (Applicant)

Shri Bapu Vitthal Bagal and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri Bapu Vitthal Bagal and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.