Dismissed

Smt. Preeti S/O Arun Joseph and Others v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC6 Feb 2019PIL/67/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought to vacate a status quo order and permit withdrawal of the PIL so that the respondent Trust could demolish illegal constructions. The Court allowed withdrawal, dismissed the petition, and vacated the status quo order.

What did the court decide?

Vacation of status quo order; permission to withdraw the petition.

Smt. Preeti S/O Arun Joseph and Others Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

0602pil67.18.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

P.I.L. No.67 of 2018

¶5

Smt. Preeti s/o Arun Joseph and others Versus State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, and others.

¶6

Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order

¶7

Shri T.D. Mandlekar, Advocate for Petitioner.

¶8

Shri D.P. Thakre, Additional Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1, 4 and 5.

¶9

Shri M.V. Samarth, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Shri S.M. Ukey. Advocate for Respondent No.3. Shri A.D. Dangre, Advocate for Respondent Nos.8 to 11.

¶10

Coram : R.K. Deshpande & Vinay Joshi, JJ. Dated : 6th February, 2019

¶11

The substantive relief claimed in this petition is contained in Prayer Clause (i) of this P.I.L., which is reproduced below :

¶12

“(i) Direct the respondent Nos.1 to 5 to demolish the illegal construction started on Government owned Land reserved for “public road” on the eastern side of Plot No.73A Shramjiwi Griha Nirman Sanstha, Sumedh Nagar, Nari Road, Nagpur (North) by respondents no:-06 to 11.”

¶13

In response to the aforesaid prayer, the stand of the respondent No.2- Nagpur Improvement Trust in Paragraph 21 of its submissions is reproduced below :

¶14

¶15

0602pil67.18.odt

¶16

“21] As to para No.6 :-

¶17

It is specifically denied that the respondent No.2 has failed in their statutory duties and action against the respondent No.6 to 11. It is also denied that the respondent protecting the illegal activities of respondent No.6 to 11. As submitted earlier, the notice is served on 16/05/2018 to remove unauthorized construction within one month i.e. 15/06/2018. However, in the meanwhile Hon'ble Court in this matter itself, directed all the parties to maintain the status quo. The unauthorized construction, if any, could not be removed for this reason.”

¶18

Shri Mandlekar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submit that the order of status quo granted by this Court be vacated and the petition be permitted to be withdrawn so that the respondent No.2- Nagpur Improvement Trust proceeds with the matter to execute the notices and demolish the encroachment on the land in question.

¶19

Permission is granted. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶20

¶21

0602pil67.18.odt

¶22

As a result of the withdrawal of the petition, the status quo granted by this Court stands vacated and the respondent No.2- Nagpur Improvement Trust to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.

¶23

(Vinay Joshi, J.) (R.K. Deshpande, J.)

¶24

Lanjewar

Smt. Preeti S/O Arun Joseph and Others v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Preeti S/O Arun Joseph and Others v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh Sitaram Dhannawat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Govind Babanrao Yewle Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Syed Zaker Syed Hussain Vs the Union of India and Others

Jan Mukti Morcha vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ramrao Bandurao Raut Vs the Gram Panchayat Thru Village Devt Officer Kitti Adgaon Tq Majalgaon Dist Beed and Others

Mr. Vikas Baldev Taneja Vs Shri. Sanjay (Bala) v. Bhegde and Ors.

Grampanchayat Bardapur through Its Sarpanch Sudhakar Pandhari Shingare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mr. Sudhakar Bhanudas Hiwale Vs Union of India through Secretary and Ors.

Magaswargiya Sarvodaya Shikshan and Prashikshan Sanstha, Wardha Thr. Secretary and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Department of Urban Development, Mumbai and Others

Rajiv S/O Arvind Ramteke Vs Director of Medical Education and Research, Mumbai and Others

Sau. Rekha W/O Ramdhan Ingole Vs Commissioner, Family Welfare and Director, Mumbai and Others

Archna Sanjay Mhaisne Vs the Zilla Parishad, Akola through Its Chief Executive Officer

Jaya Prabhakar Khanzode Vs the Zilla Parishad, Akola through Its Chief Executive Officer

The Yeovatmal District Labour Co-Operative Societies Federation, Yeovatmal through Its President Vs the State of Maha. through Secretary, Ministry of Co-Operation, Marketing and Textile Dept. and Ors.