Disposed

Red Crescent Society of Mumbai v. State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC22 Jan 2020PIL/95/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a public interest litigation regarding unauthorized constructions. Finding the Municipal Corporation had affirmed an affidavit stating it had demolished most structures and widened the road, the court held further pursuit was unnecessary and ordered removal of remaining structures.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Municipal Corporation to remove the four remaining structures in accordance with law.

Red Crescent Society of Mumbai Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

921-PIL.95.2014.doc

¶2

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

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.95 OF 2014

¶4

Red Crescent Society of Mumbai } Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. } Respondents

¶5

Mr.Sameer Mhatre with Mr.Abhijit Patil i/b Mr.Ajay Patil for the Petitioner.

¶6

Mr.Milind More-Additional Government Pleader for Respondent No.1 (State).

¶7

Mr.A.Y.Sakhare-Senior Advocate with Ms.Kejali Mastakar for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 (MCGM).

¶8

Ms.Kiran Bhagalia i/b Chitra Phadke for Respondent No.4 (MMRDA).

¶9

Mr.Sandeep JadhavAssistant Community Development Officer-MMRDA present.

¶10

CORAM :- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & R. I. CHAGLA, JJ. DATED :- JANUARY 22, 2020

¶11

P.C. :-

¶12

This petition has been listed on 25 previous occasions. There

¶13

are extensive affidavits which have been filed.

¶14

To our mind, if we do not get any assistance from the advocate appearing for the PIL petitioner, we are not obliged to pursue it. In fact, the PIL was placed before us on 5^th November,

¶15

Page 1 of 2

¶16

J.V.SALUNKE,PS

¶17

921-PIL.95.2014.doc

¶18

The affidavit was to be filed by the Municipal Corporation and which would denote that the Municipal Corporation is serious in taking cognizance of the complaint of the petitioner and other residents against the unauthorised construction.

¶19

We note that pursuant to our order, the Municipal Corporation has placed an affidavit. That affidavit has been affirmed on 20^th November, 2019. The affidavit indicates that the demolition work of the remaining structures has been carried out. There are now 4 structures remaining to be demolished. The road has been widened as per the Development Plan and constructed to its fullest width i.e. 120 feet. The existing road has been extended by 30 to 35 feet after removal of the structures.

¶20

It is in these circumstances, we do not think that this PIL needs to be pursued. Let all remaining structures also be removed by the Municipal Corporation in accordance with law.

¶21

The PIL is disposed of accordingly.

¶22

(R.I.CHAGLA, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶23

Page 2 of 2

¶24

J.V.SALUNKE,PS

Red Crescent Society of Mumbai v. State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Red Crescent Society of Mumbai v. State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

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

Gazi S a Ansari Vs the Union of India and Others

Balasaheb Shivaji Ralebhat Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Tanaji Bramhadeo Kalel Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Education and Ors.

Sagar Kundalik Dalvi Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary Department of Urban Development Mumbai and Others

Bhagvanji Rayani vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Jan Mukti Morcha vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shri. Sanjay Digambar Balgude Vs the Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Kalyan Vasantrao Salunke Vs the Principal Secretary Water Resources Department and Others

Rajwant Kaur Vs Union of India and Anr.

Salman Nafis a Qureshi Vs the Principal of Mmk College and 2 Ors.

Mr. Shriniwas Gajanan Marathe Vs Shri. Manish Dalvi, Chairperson

Deepak Shashidhar Golappanvar Vs Mrs. Meenakshi Amit Jain and Ors.

Ritu Ruhil Vs the Central Board of Film Certification and 2 Ors.

S. G. Barnes Vs the Commissioner of Bmc 5 Ors.