Disposed

Azajuddihn @ Azruddin Aminuddin Siddiqui v. Municipal Corporation for Creater Mumbai

Bombay HC16 Feb 2018WP/716/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court heard a writ petition by a petitioner ineligible for alternate accommodation. The Court noted a pending appeal regarding eligibility. It disposed of the petition on terms: the corporation must decide the appeal within four months; no demolition shall occur pending the decision or for three weeks if approved/dismissed; the Court made no adjudication on eligibility. (2 lines order)

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed directing the Corporation to decide the pending appeal within four months and granting liberty to uphold the order only if the appeal status was incorrect.

Azajuddihn @ Azruddin Aminuddin Siddiqui Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

wpl-3766.17.odt

¶2

pmw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO.3766 OF 2017

¶4

Azajuddihn @ Azruddin Aminuddin Siddiqui … Petitioner Vs. Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai … Respondent

¶5

Mr. N.K. Dubey i/by Mr. V.T. Dubey for the Petitioner. Ms. Vandana Mahadik for the Respondent – BMC.

¶6

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

¶7

DATE : 16^th FEBRUARY, 2018

¶8

P.C.

¶9

1 The statement of the petitioner recorded in order dated 9th January, 2018 shows that the petitioner has been held ineligible for grant of alternate accommodation. Therefore, an Appeal has been preferred by the petitioner. There is a further statement recorded by the Advocate for the petitioner on instructions of the petitioner that in the event the petitioner is held eligible for alternate accommodation, he is willing to vacate the subject structure.

¶10

2 As the statement has been made that the Appeal preferred by the petitioner is pending, this Petition need not be kept pending. If

¶11

1 of 3

¶12

wpl-3766.17.odt

¶13

this statement is found to be incorrect, we grant liberty to the Municipal Corporation to move the Court for vacating this order. Accordingly, we dispose of the Petition by passing the following order :-

¶14

ORDER

¶15

(i) The Appeal preferred by the petitioner on the issue of eligibility for grant of alternate accommodation shall be decided by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation as expeditiously as possible and in any event, within a period of four months from today;

¶16

(ii) The decision taken on the Appeal shall be communicated to the petitioner by the Municipal Corporation. If the petitioner is held to be eligible for grant of alternate accommodation, along with the decision on Appeal, alternate accommodation shall be offered to the petitioner. Time of three weeks shall be granted to the petitioner to accept the alternate accommodation from the date of service of the decision in Appeal to the petitioner. For the said period of three weeks, the structure of the petitioner shall not be demolished;

¶17

2 of 3

¶18

wpl-3766.17.odt

¶19

(iii) In the event the Appeal is dismissed, the structure of the

¶20

petitioner shall not be demolished for a period of three weeks from the date on which the order passed on Appeal is communicated to the petitioner;

¶21

(iv) We clarify that till the date of communication of the decision on the Appeal preferred by the petitioner to him, structure of the petitioner shall not be demolished;

¶22

(v) We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the question whether the petitioner is eligible for grant of alternate accommodation. We also make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the question in what manner the petitioner shall be rehabilitated in the event the petitioner is found to be eligible;

¶23

(vi) The Petition is disposed of on above terms.

¶24

(P.N. DESHMUKH, J)

¶25

(A.S. OKA, J)

¶26

3 of 3

Azajuddihn @ Azruddin Aminuddin Siddiqui v. Municipal Corporation for Creater Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Azajuddihn @ Azruddin Aminuddin Siddiqui v. Municipal Corporation for Creater 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

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.

Manjit Singh Salooja Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

Sunil Shridhar Poyrekar and 14 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Padma Vijay Velkar and 29 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.