Disposed

Kastkari Kamgar Panchyat , through Its Secretary and Ors. v. the Municipal Corporation of the City of Pimpri Chinchwad and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Feb 2018WP/14217/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court declined to entertain a writ petition seeking inquiry into ineligible allotments under the JNNURM scheme, holding that the petitioners failed to first make a representation to the competent authority. The petition was disposed of with directions to make such a representation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to petitioners to make a representation to the competent authority before filing the petition again; petition disposed of with this direction.

Kastkari Kamgar Panchyat , through Its… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

rsk

¶2

P-506-WP-14217-17.doc

¶3

1/2

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.14217 OF 2017

¶6

Kastkari Kamgar Panchayat through its Secretary and Ors. vs.

¶7

The Municipal Corporation of the City of Pimpri Chinchwad and Ors.

¶8

..Petitioners

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

Mr. Subhash V. Gutte for the Petitioners.

¶11

Mr. Rohan P. Sakhadeo for the Respondent Nos.1,2 and 4. Mr. Manish M. Pabale, AGP for the Respondent Nos.7 and 8.

¶12

CORAM : A.S. OKA & P. N. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : 15^th FEBRUARY, 2018

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

. Not on board. Taken on board.

¶15

The grievance in this petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India is as regards the eligibility of certain persons for grant of benefits under the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission. The submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioners is that though all the Petitioners except the Petitioner No.1 which is an organization are held to be eligible for the benefit under the said scheme, the contention is that the said Petitioners have been placed on a waiting list, as several persons who were ineligible under the said scheme have been shown as eligible.

¶16

In our view, before seeking a writ of mandamus, the Petitioners ought to have made a representation to the Authority which is competent to decide the issue of eligibility. Certain names of ineligible persons have been allegedly provided by the Municipal Corporation under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to the Petitioners vide letter dated 27^th December 2017 and vide letter dated 18^th January 2018, the Petitioners have asked the Municipal Corporation for more information concerning the

¶17

rsk

¶18

P-506-WP-14217-17.doc

¶19

2/2

¶20

said ineligible persons.

¶21

The prayer made in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for directing the Respondents to initiate inquiry as regards the allotment made to 6720 persons who are allegedly ineligible.

¶22

Such a sweeping relief cannot be claimed when the Petitioners have not even made a proper representation to the Municipal Corporation. The Respondent No.1 is the Competent Authority to decide the issue of eligibility for grant of the benefit under the said scheme. Hence, we decline to entertain this petition at this stage and dispose of the petition by passing the following order:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

i) It will be open for the Petitioners to make an appropriate representation to the Respondent No.1 setting out the names of the persons who according to the case of the Petitioners are ineligible for grant of the benefits under the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission. The Petitioners shall also state the reasons as to why the said such persons are ineligible;

¶25

ii) If such a representation is made by the Petitioners, the appropriate authority of the Respondent No.1 shall decide the representation as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 4 month from the date on which the representation is made;

¶26

iii) With the above directions, the petition is disposed of. All contentions raised by the parties are kept open;

¶27

iv) All concerned to act upon an authenticated copy of this order.

¶28

(P.N. DESHMUKH, J)

¶29

(A.S. OKA, J.)

Kastkari Kamgar Panchyat , through Its Secretary and Ors. v. the Municipal Corporation of the City of Pimpri Chinchwad and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kastkari Kamgar Panchyat , through Its Secretary and Ors. v. the Municipal Corporation of the City of Pimpri Chinchwad and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr.Placid Jospeh D'Souza Vs the Commissioner Bombay Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 5 Ors.

Champaben Raichand Gosrani and 17 Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

Dr. Ramkumar R. Sharma Vs the Commissioner Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Milind Madhav Patankar Vs Thane Municipal Corporation through Commissioner and Ors.

Kesari H.Mali Vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors.

Smt. Ishwaribai Kartarmal Sewlani Vs Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation and Ors.