Partly allowed

Pannalal Nanhu Yadav and 8 Ors. v. Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai

Bombay HC24 Jan 2018WP/333/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A group of individuals sought a writ petition challenging brick kiln demolitions. The court allowed withdrawal for some petitioners. For two others who filed ineligible appeals, the court directed the authority to decide the appeals within three months, barred demolition during this period and for three weeks thereafter, corrected an eligibility error in a prior order, and authorized demolition fo

What did the court decide?

Directions to decide appeals within three months; stay of demolition for two petitioners pending appeal and for three weeks thereafter; correction of clerical error in previous order; authorization to

Pannalal Nanhu Yadav and 8 Ors. Vs Municipal… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

WPL. 3629-17.doc

¶2

VPH

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION (L) No. 3629 OF 2017

¶5

Pannalal Nanhu Yadav & Ors … Petitioners

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai … Respondent

¶8

¶9

Mr. V. T. Dubey, for the Petitioners.

¶10

Mr. Rajesh Patil, K. H. Mastakar, Ms. Vandana Mahadik, for the Respondent - BMC.

¶11

¶12

CORAM : A. S. OKA, & P. N. DESHMUKH, JJ.

¶13

DATE : JANUARY 24, 2018

¶14

PC :

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners. He states

¶16

that he may be permitted to withdraw the petition as far as 1^st , 3^rd , 4^th ,

¶17

5^th and 7^th to 9^th Petitioners are concerned. As regards 2^nd and 6^th Petitioner, the learned counsel has tendered across the bar the copies of the appeals preferred by them on the issue of eligibility, as they have been held to be ineligible. The copies of the appeals are taken on

¶18

record and marked “A1” and “A2” for identification. Both photo

¶19

copies bear the inward stamps of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation

¶20

1 / 3

¶21

WPL. 3629-17.doc

¶22

which show that appeals were filed on 15^th December, 2017. We accept the statement made by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that to the knowledge of 6^th and 7^th Petitioners, their appeals have not been decided as of today. The learned counsel for the Respondent Corporation has no instructions on this aspect.

¶23

Hence, we dispose of the petition by passing the following order:

¶24

(i) As far as 1^st , 3^rd , 4^th , 5^th and 7^th to 9^th Petitioners are

¶25

concerned, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn;

¶26

(ii) We direct the appropriate appellate authority of the Respondent Corporation to decide the appeals preferred by 2^nd and 6^th Petitioners (marked “A1” and “A2” for identification) as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of three months from today. The decision taken on the appeals shall be communicated to

¶27

both the Petitioners;

¶28

(iii) Till the date of communication of the decision to the 2^nd and 6^th Petitioners, the subject structures occupied by

¶29

2 / 3

¶30

WPL. 3629-17.doc

¶31

them shall not be demolished. If the decisions in appeals be adverse to the said two Petitioners, the protection granted as aforesaid shall continue for a further period of three weeks from the date of communication of the decisions on the appeals to the respective Petitioners;

¶32

(iv) We make it clear that as regards the other Petitioners (except 2^nd and 6^th Petitioners), the structures occupied by them which are subject matter of this petition can be demolished by the Municipal Corporation;

¶33

(v) All concerned to act upon an authenticated copy of this order;

¶34

(vi) In order dated 20^th December, 2017 there is an error. The word “eligible” appearing in the third last line of clause 2 of the said order shall be replaced by the word “ineligible”. The correction shall be carried out in the original order as well as order uploaded on the server.

¶35

Sd/Sd/[P. N. DESHMUKH, J.] [A. S. OKA, J.]

¶36

Vinayak Halemath

¶37

3 / 3

Pannalal Nanhu Yadav and 8 Ors. v. Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pannalal Nanhu Yadav and 8 Ors. v. Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saptrishi Residents Cooperative Housing Federation Ltd. and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Others and Krishna Developers Private Limited Applicant Intervenors

Firoz Abdul Sattar Dhorajiwala Vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation

Ravindra H. Shinde Vs State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Ors.

Bajirao Shravan Bhandari and 62 Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and 7 Others

Pandurang Joti Adsule Vs Shri. Prithviraj Chavan (Former Hon'Ble Chief Minister and Urban Development Minister) and Anr.

Pandurang Joti Adsule Vs Shri. Prithviraj Chavan (Former Hon'Ble Chief Minister and Urban Development Minister) and Anr.