Disposed

Aakhil Bharatiya Dhobi Samaj Sangh v. the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC12 Dec 2018PIL/43/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, representing Dhobi Ghat transformers, sought directions regarding the implementation of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme in the heritage area. The Court noted that the matter was already adjudicated in a prior order where most residents had been shifted. Disposing of the PIL, the Court held that eligible affected persons may approach remedies as the cause of action arises.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; eligible affected persons invited to approach remedies as cause of action arises.

Aakhil Bharatiya Dhobi Samaj Sangh Vs the State of… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

pil 43-18.doc

¶2

DDR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 43 OF 2018

¶5

Aakhil Bharatiya Dhobi Samaj Sangh .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. .. Respondents

¶6

Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Senior Advocate I/b. Sujeet G. Kurup and Shivaji P. Yadav for the petitioner.

¶7

Mr. Rajiv Mane, AGP a/w. Ms. Deepali Patankar, AGP for State – respondent No.1.

¶8

Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. H.C. Pimple for MCGM – respondent No.2.

¶9

Mr. Vijay D. Patil for respondent No.3.

¶10

Mr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate a/w. Ms. Asha Nair, Surendra Vishwakarma, Siddhartham Nair & Ms. Prajakta Samel I/b. Diamondwala & Co. for respondent No.4.

¶11

Mr. P.K. Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate I/b. Jayesh R. Vyas for respondent No.5.

¶12

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL, CJ. & M.S. KARNIK, J. DATE : 12^th DECEMBER, 2018

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

The petitioner prays for various direction to

¶15

contesting respondents in this Public Interest Litigation ('PIL' for

¶16

short). Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶17

submits that Dhobi Ghat area which is heritage site is

¶18

1/4

¶19

pil 43-18.doc

¶20

comprising 2 lakhs sq. mtrs. out of which the authorities have decided to implement Slum Rehabilitation Scheme in respect of area comprising 38,000 sq. mtrs. which according to the learned Senior Counsel is not part of the heritage site. The members of the petitioner - Sangh have prayed that the authorities to take necessary steps in accordance with the observations made in the order dated 5^th October, 2018 passed in Writ Petition No. 1654 of 2018 and the statements recorded therein. Learned Senior Counsel has additional prayer to make. It is submitted that some time-line is required to be fixed for the Developer / Authorities concerned to provide temporary alternate accommodation.

¶21

Mr. Sathe, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.4 and Mr. Dhakephalkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 initially raised objection to the petitioner's locus. It is submitted that in past couple of years Petitions were filed by the individuals, organizations, representing interest of the persons engaged in Dhobi Ghat area. The issue has already suffered adjudication in a batch of

¶22

2/4

¶23

pil 43-18.doc

¶24

Petitions filed and decided by an order dated 5^th October, 2018 by Division Bench (Coram : B.R. Gavai and M.S. Karnik, JJ.).

¶25

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5 submit that except 28 persons, near about all such persons occupying subject area have vacated the premises. The respondents would take necessary steps in accordance with the observations made and the statements recorded in the earlier order passed by Division Bench of this Court.

¶26

We have perused the said order and considered the submissions advanced. In paragraph 22 of the said order dated 5^th October, 2018 it is observed as under :-

¶27

“ 22. It would be pertinent to note that out of 1530 slum dwellers, already 1502 have been shifted and are being provided with rent in lieu of temporary alternate accommodation. Insofar as the licenced rassi holders are concerned, they are being provided with temporary location to carry on their activities of drying clothes. They are already shifted from the site for implementation of the scheme. It is also pertinent to note that the Dhobi Audhyogik Vikas Co-op Society Ltd. which filed Writ Petition No. 2691 of 2015, had categorically made a statement that they are not objecting to

¶28

3/4

¶29

pil 43-18.doc

¶30

the implementation of the slum scheme. A meeting was called on 25/05/2016 by CEO of SRA which was duly attended by various authorities to consider the pros & cons and beneficial usage of Dhobighat, reservation for drying area etc. The meeting was duly attended by representatives of the Societies of which rassi holders are members.”

¶31

In view of the said order, the present PIL also stands disposed of. An eligible affected person, organizations or Sangh representing eligible members, may as and when cause of action arises, resort to remedies available in law. We do not express any opinion on merits.

¶32

The Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶33

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

¶34

4/4

Aakhil Bharatiya Dhobi Samaj Sangh v. the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aakhil Bharatiya Dhobi Samaj Sangh v. the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Dattatray Nana Mali vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Shri. Arun Bhimrao Bhosale and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Arun Bhimrao Bhosale and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ramesh Chhabinath Mishra and Anr. Vs Central Board of Film Certification Regional Office Firm Div. and Ors.

Ramesh Nago Shelar, Shirpur,Dhule Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dinesh Suresh Deore Vs the Union of India and Others

Mr. Rajesh Madhukar Pandit and Ors. Vs the Nashik Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Mah. Rajya Karmachari Mahasangh (Prop.) Thru Shri. Mukund H. Jadwar vs Chief Secretary, State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vinod Jain Vs Rohit Manohar Joshi

Maharashtra State Road Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs Rohit Manohar Joshi

Maharashtra State Road Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs Rohit Manohar Joshi

Jaywant Industrial Premises Co-Operative Society Ltd. and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Uday Ganpatrao Badadare Vs Kisan S/O Baburao Hazare @ Anna Hazare

The Sindh Cloth Merchants Association through Pet. No. 2 and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Revenue Minister and Ors.