Dismissed

Malvani-Radhakrishna Sahakari Grihanirman Sanstha(Niyojit) v. the State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Bombay HC7 Jun 2019WP/926/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a Writ Petition challenging an interim order staying construction in a Public Interest Litigation. The Bench held that such interim orders cannot be challenged in a separate petition; the remedy lies in seeking modification before the bench that passed the interim order or appealing the final judgment.

What did the court decide?

The petition is disposed of declining the reliefs claimed.

Malvani-Radhakrishna Sahakari… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

(4) WP 926-16

¶2

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

¶3

Amk

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 926 OF 2016

¶5

Malvani-Radhakrishna Sahakari Grihanirman Sanstha (Niyojit) .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶6

Mr. Vijay S. Kurle for the Petitioner. Mr. Milind More, Addl. G. P. for the Respondent-State. Mr. H. C. Pimple for the Respondent-MCGM. Smt. S. V. Bharucha a/w. Mr. M. S. Bharadwaj for Respondent No.2. Mr. Vaibhav M. Parashurami for Respondent Nos.3 & 4. Ms. Sharmila U. Deshmukh for Respondent No.6. Mr. Jai Chhabria i/b Jayakars for Bombay Environmental Action Group.

¶7

CORAM : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, C.J. & N. M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 7 th JUNE, 2019.

¶8

P. C. :

¶9

The Petitioner obtained approval to construct a building on Plot No. 81 at Survey No.263 (part), CTS 3525A of village Malvani, Malad (West). In a Public Interest Litigation filed vide interim order dated October 6, 2005 noting the Coastal Zone Regulations, the existence of mangroves and forming a prima-facie opinion that no construction could be made keeping in view the environmental laws within 50

¶10

1/2

¶11

(4) WP 926-16

¶12

meters from the mangroves, the construction was stayed. Challenge in the instant Writ Petition is to the said interim order dated 06.10.2005.

¶13

Suffice it to state that a judicial order passed in a Public Interest Litigation cannot be the subject matter of challenge in another Writ Petition. If the Writ Petitioner is aggrieved by any interim order passed in a Public Interest Litigation, the remedy is to seek intervention before the Bench concerned and seek modification of the order.

¶14

Today much water has further flown. The Public Interest Litigation has finally been disposed of vide Judgment dated 17.09.2018. The interim direction staying the construction has been converted into a final directions.

¶15

Therefore the remedy of the Writ Petitioner is to lay a challenge before the superior Court to the final Judgment dated 17.09.2018.

¶16

The Petition is disposed of declining the reliefs claimed for.

¶17

[N. M. JAMDAR, J.]

¶18

[CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶19

2/2

Malvani-Radhakrishna Sahakari Grihanirman Sanstha(Niyojit) v. the State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malvani-Radhakrishna Sahakari Grihanirman Sanstha(Niyojit) v. the State of Maharashtra and 6 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

Satyanaryan Agrawal and 3 Ors. Vs Kamla Homes and Lifestyle Pvt.Ltd. and Anr.

Shri Sharad Ganpat Gaikwad Vs Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Education Society and 3 Ors.

Kit'S College of Engineering and Anr. Vs Mrs. S.S. Adure and Ors.

Twenty First Century Finance Limited and Anr. Vs Moorgate Industries India Private Limited (Erstwhile Stemcor India Private Limited) and 2 Ors.

Charkop Jyotirmay Sahakari Grihanirman Sanstha Maryadit Vs the State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Charkop Gurukul Sahakari Grihanirma Sanstha Niyojit Vs the State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.