Disposed

Zoru Darayus Bhathena v. Tree Authority, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 13 Ors.

Bombay HC18 Jun 2019NMW/181/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench held that the substantive issue regarding the composition of the Tree Authority requires proper pleadings. The court issued a notice of motion to stay the Authority's functioning for 10 days to allow the petitioner to file a substantive writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Stayed the functioning of the constituted Tree Authority for 10 days to permit the petitioner to file a substantive writ petition.

Zoru Darayus Bhathena Vs Tree Authority, Municipal… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

NMW 181.19.doc

¶2

¶3

JPP

¶4

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

¶5

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 181 OF 2019 in PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 46 OF 2015

¶6

Tree Authority, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai … Applicant

¶7

In the matter between Zoru Darayus Bhathena … Petitioner V/s. Tree Authority, MCGM and Ors. ... Respondents.

¶8

Ms. Sonal a/w. Mr. Manoj Shirsat and Ms. Kainaz Irani I/b. Pushpa for the Petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, Advocate General I/b. Akshay P. Shinde for the Applicant in NMWL 63/19.

¶10

Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Rajesh Patil and Mr. H.C. Pimple and Ms. K.H. Mastakar for MCGM and for the Applicant in NMW 181/19.

¶11

Ms. Sharmila Deshmukh a/w. Jaya J. Bagwe for Respondent No.4. Mr. G.W. Mattos for Respondent No.7.

¶12

Ms. Shailaja Nair I/b. T.J. Pandian for Respondent No.11.

¶13

Mr. Anit Shastri, AGP for the State – Respondents 3 & 6 in NMWL 63/19.

¶14

Mr. Kunal Birwadkar, Respondent No.14 present in-person.

¶15

NMW 181.19.doc

¶16

¶17

CORAM : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,C.J. & N.M. JAMDAR, J.

¶18

DATE : 18 JUNE 2019.

¶19

P.C. :-

¶20

Issue arises whether observations with directions in various judicial orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court lay down the law or are the expression of an opinion by the learned Judges. The matter concerns constitution of the Tree Authority and in particular whether the number of nominated members must be equal to the member of Corporators constituting the Tree Authority.

¶21

It would be advisable that the issue is decided on proper pleadings before the Court and not by way of interim applications or Notice of Motion.

¶22

We dispose of the Notice of Motion directing that the Tree Authority constituted in Mumbai Municipal area would not take any decisions for a period of 10 days and within said period the Petitioner would be permitted to file a substantive Writ Petition.

¶23

N.M. JAMDAR, J. CHIEF JUSTICE

Zoru Darayus Bhathena v. Tree Authority, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 13 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zoru Darayus Bhathena v. Tree Authority, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 13 Ors.

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

All Maharashtra Human Rights Welfare Association Vs Mumbai Circket Association and 2 Ors.

Lakhansingh Mahendrasingh Jadhav Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Nashik Zilla Parishad Prathamik Shikshak Kruti Samiti through Mr. Pravin Deshmukh Vs the Chief Executive Officer and Ors.

Shri. Gorakh Navnath Divate Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vinod D Gangwal Vs Registrar General of Bombay High Court

Bar Association Jalgaon (Jamod), Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another