PIL regarding unauthorized construction. Court noted a clear mismatch between pleadings stating demolition occurred and prayer seeking demolition order. Petition dismissed.
The petition was dismissed.
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.
1
JPP
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ATBOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 8 OF 2019
Ajiut Shantaram Mahadik
… Petitioner.
V/s.
Maharashtra Housing Area Development Authority, Gruh Nirman Bhavan, Bandra & Ors. ... Respondents.
None for the Petitioner.
Mr. P.G. Lad a/w. Ms. Aparna Murlidharan for Respondent No.1 - MHADA
Mr. H.C. Pimple for Respondent No.3 - MCGM.
CORAM : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,C.J. & N.M. JAMDAR, J.
DATE : 26 JUNE 2019.
P.C. :-
Notwithstanding none appearing for the Petitioner, since this is a Public Interest Litigation, we have perused the pleadings.
2 8. PIL 8.19.doc
was the Architect appointed. It is pleaded in paragraph 6 that under the garb of repairs the construction company to which the work was assigned i.e. Respondent No.4 constricted a mezzanine, made provisions for a lift, the building which had four floors was converted into a five storeyed building. It is pleaded that on 1 March 2014 the 1st Respondent issued a Stop Work Notice and in paragraph 9 it is pleaded that the building has since been demolished.
N.M. JAMDAR, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to direct demolition of a structure that has already been demolished based on a mismatch between pleadings and prayer .
Ajiut Shantaram Mahadik
Maharashtra Housing Area Development Authority
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Pradeep Nandr爵士
N.M. Jamdar
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
