Dismissed

Taj Ahemad S/O Ali Ahemad and Others v. Government of Maharashtra through Planning Department, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC23 Sept 2019WP/3346/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, petitioners challenged the beautification work at Tajabad premises controlled by the Nagpur Improvement Trust. The court observed that petitioners displayed a hostile attitude towards the Trust while simultaneously claiming interest in it and seeking beautification, leading to a conclusion of lack of bona fides.

What the court decided

AI extract

Taj Ahemad S/O Ali Ahemad and Others Vs Government… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2019)

Order

2309wp3346.19

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 3346/2019.

¶6

Taj Ahmed Ali Ahemad and others.

¶7

-VERSUS-

¶8

Government of Maharashtra and others.

¶9

Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders
or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶10

Shri R.B. Khan, Advocate for Petitioners.

¶11

A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3.
Shri G.A. Kunte, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.
Shri G.M. Kubade, Advocate for Respondent No.4.

¶12

CORAM: R.K. DESHPANDE &
VINAY JOSHI, JJ.

¶13

DATE : SEPTEMBER 23, 2019.

¶14

Heard.

¶15

2.Petitioners in the present petition claim the

¶16

reliefs as under :

¶17

"13. It is therefore humbly and respectfully
prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to--

¶18

a.To direct the respondent no.1 to
supervise and control the work of
beautification of Tajabad premises which is
being carried out by respondent no.2.

¶19

b.To direct respondent no.2 to
rectify the irregularities committed during the

Order

2309wp3346.19

work of beautification of Tajabad premises by
getting the plan sanctioned by following due
process of law.

¶24

c.To direct the respondent no.2 not
to carry out any work in respect of
beautification of Tajabad premises till the
plan for beautification is sanctioned.

¶25

d.(deleted as per order dated
05.08.2019).

¶26

e.To direct the respondent no.4 not
to undertake any work nor to take any
decision in the matter of Tajabad premises till
respondent no.3 makes the appointment of 9
board of trustees.

¶27

f.To grant interim relief and ad-
interim relief in terms of prayer clause "C" &
"E".

¶28

g.To grant any other relief as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and
circumstance of the case in the interest of the
justice."

¶29

3.The Nagpur Improvement Trust is the
authority appointed as Nodal Agency to carry out the
beautification work of Tajabad premises, on
05.04.2013. The work of beautification of the

¶30

premises is going on. The matter was heard on
02.05.2019, when we passed the following order :

¶31

"The learned Counsel for the

Order

2309wp3346.19

petitioners submits that since there is no
occupancy certificate, the construction of
the shop blocks itself is illegal.

¶36

In view of the aforesaid
argument, the petitioners are not entitled
to remain in occupation of such shop
blocks towards which the petitioners bear
a hostile attitude. The Administrator
shall be at liberty to proceed further in
the matter to get the shop blocks
vacated.

¶37

Later on, the learned counsel
for the petitioners agrees that all the
petitioners shall deposit the entire up-to-
date arrears of rent payable as per the
agreement within a period of one month
from today to which the Administrator is
agreeable.

¶38

In view of this, we permit the
petitioners to occupy the shop blocks for
a period of one month from today. If the
up-to-date amount of arrears of the rent
is not deposited during this period, the
Administrator shall be at liberty to take
steps to get the shop blocks occupied by
the petitioners vacated. This is all
without prejudice to the rights of the
parties.

¶39

Put up after summer

¶40

vacation.”

¶41

4.Petitioners who are bearing hostile attitude

Order

2309wp3346.19

towards the Trust on one hand and are claiming
interest on the Trust on the other to seek
beautification, lack bonafides. Writ Petition is,
therefore, dismissed. No costs.

¶46

 JUDGE JUDGE

¶47

Rgd.

Taj Ahemad S/O Ali Ahemad and Others v. Government of Maharashtra through Planning Department, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Taj Ahemad S/O Ali Ahemad and Others v. Government of Maharashtra through Planning Department, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surendrasingh S/O Bajrangsingh Chandel Vs the Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Thr. Dy. Director and Member Sec. and Ors.

Deorao S/O Maroti Katole Vs the Schedule Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, through Its Member Secretary, Amravati

Anand S/O Dattatraya Kumbhare Vs the Joint Director, Vocational Education and Training, Amravati and Another

The Central India Institute of Mass Communication, through Sunil Gayaprasad Mishra Vs the Chancellor, Rtm Nagpur University, Mumbai and Others

Ku. Manda Bhaurao Waghmare Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary, Social Justice Department, Mumbai and Others

Vidya D/O Ashok Lokhandkar and Another Vs State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Mumbai and or