Disposed

Shri. Shriniwas Anant Ghanekar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary, State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Jun 2018PIL/31/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court deleted the second petitioner from a PIL, considering his office now addresses the grievances. The Court directed the first petitioner to make a representation to the State Government and the second petitioner before deciding if further amendments should be considered.

What did the court decide?

Name of second petitioner deleted; directions to first petitioner to file representation to State Government and second petitioner regarding grievances.

Shri. Shriniwas Anant Ghanekar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary, State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Bombay HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

pil-31.12.odt

¶2

pmw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.31 OF 2012

¶4

WITH

¶5

CIVIL APPLICATION (ST) NO.25756 OF 2016

¶6

Shri Shriniwas Anant Ghanekar and Anr. … Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents

¶7

PIL/31/2012 a/w CAIST/25756/2016

¶8

Ms. Savina S. Bangera for the Petitioners and Applicants. Mr. A.B. Vagyani, G.P. a/w Mrs. R.A. Salunkhe, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶9

Ms. Urmila M. Jhaveri for the Respondent No.4.

¶10

Mr. Deepak Chitnis – Chiparikar I/by M/s. Deepak Chitnis-Chiparikar & Co. for the Respondent No.5.

¶11

Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. V.R. Dhond, Senior Advocate, Mr. Thipsay, Ms. Teresa Daulat & Mr. Mohanish Patkar I/by TRD Associates for the Respondent Nos.7, 8 and 10.

¶12

CORAM : A.S. OKA &

¶13

RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.

¶14

DATE : 25^th JUNE 2018

¶15

P.C.

¶16

1 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners points out that there is a separate application filed for deleting the name of the second petitioner. She pointed out that now the second petitioner is the Hon'ble Cabinet Minister in-charge of the Departments of Public Works

¶17

(Public Undertaking) and that he is the Chairperson of the third respondent – the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation by

¶18

1 of 3

¶19

pil-31.12.odt

¶20

virtue of holding the office of the Hon'ble Minister. The main grievances in this petition are about the first and third respondents. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners states that she wants to amend the petition extensively on account of subsequent events.

¶21

2 In view of the statements made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the question is whether we should allow the first petitioner to prosecute this petition by amending the same by adding additional grievances and prayers. In fact, the second petitioner who is the co-petitioner of the first petitioner is now in a position to deal with all the grievances which are raised in the petition and which the first petitioner proposes to raise. We are sure that if the first petitioner addresses a representation to the second petitioner in his official capacity, the second petitioner will certainly look into the grievances made by the first petitioner in accordance with law.

¶22

3 We, therefore, dispose of this petition by passing the following order :-

¶23

ORDER

¶24

(i) The name of the second petitioner stands deleted;

¶25

(ii) It will be open for the first petitioner to make

¶26

appropriate representation to the State Government as well as to the second petitioner in his official capacity

¶27

2 of 3

¶28

pil-31.12.odt

¶29

regarding the grievances which are made in this petition which survive for consideration and grievances which the first petitioner intended to incorporate by way of amendment. If such representation is made, we are sure that the same will be decided in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible;

¶30

(iii) All contentions are kept open. Pending Civil Applications do not survive.

¶31

(RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, J)

¶32

(A.S. OKA, J)

¶33

3 of 3

Shri. Shriniwas Anant Ghanekar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary, State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Shriniwas Anant Ghanekar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary, State of Maharashtra and 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

Smt. Seema Mahesh Hiray Vs Nashik Municipal Corporation through Municipal Commissioner and Ors.

Shri Balaji Charitable Trust, through Founder Member, Rajendra Madhukarrao Chorge and Ors. Vs Satara Municipal Council, through President and Ors.

Shri Balaji Charitable Trust, through Founder Member, Rajendra Madhukarrao Chorge and Ors. Vs Satara Municipal Council, through President and Ors.

Amit Maru Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Jamshid Kersi Dalal Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Zuber Jabir Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Sudhir Pralhad Barge Vs State of Maharashtra through the Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Sharad H. Sheth and Anr. Vs the General Manager Central Railway and Anr.

Mohd. Salim Khan and 8 Ors. Vs Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. and 4 Ors.

Prasant Surve Vs the Municipal Commissioner Mcgm and 6 Ors.

Ansari Iqbal Ahemad Mohd. Haroon Vs the State of Maharashtra through Dept. of Urban Development and Ors.

Shri. Prakash Sukhdev Bhoir and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Nitesh Prataprai Kothari Vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation and 2 Ors.

Vijay Punjab Building No. 18 Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs Bombay Municipal Corporation Greater Bombay and 4 Ors.