Respondent undertook not to demolish petitioners' structures based on a specific notice. The High Court accepted this assurance and found it unnecessary to entertain the writ petition under Article 226.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
rkm
(75)wpl-1253-18.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO.1253 OF 2018
Mohd. Salim Khan & Ors.
..Petitioners.
Vs.
Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
..Respondents.
Mr.Akash Rebello I/by Mr.Amit T. Dubey and Mr.Mahesh Mishra, for the Petitioner .
Ms.Asha Bhambwani, for Respondent No.1.
Mr.Amar Mishra, AGP for Respondent No.3/State.
Mr.Abhijit P. Kuklkarni, for Respondent No.4.
CORAM : A.S. OKA & R.I.CHAGLA, JJ.
DATE : 22nd JUNE, 2018
P.C.
1 Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent on instructions states that said Respondent will not carry out demolition of the structures of the Petitioners on the basis of the impugned notice at Exhibit A dated 3rd April 2018. We accept the said statement. It is obvious that no other authority can take action, inasmuch as if any other authority wants to take action of demolition, it will have to follow due process of law, which will naturally include compliance with the principles of natural justice.
1 of 2
rkm
(75)wpl-1253-18.odt
(R.I. CHAGLA, J) (A.S. OKA, J)
2 of 2
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohd. Salim Khan & Ors.
Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
A.S. OKA
R.I. CHAGLA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
