Partly allowed

Irshad S/O Jabbar Khan v. the State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary, Public Works Department, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC10 Feb 2021PIL/46/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council to take notices regarding unauthorized construction to their logical end within four months. Though the petitioner lacked proof of social work credentials, the court granted limited relief while imposing costs for potential abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Director the Chief Officer to take notices on unauthorized construction to logical end within four months; imposed costs of Rs.10,000/- on petitioner.

Irshad S/O Jabbar Khan Vs the State of… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

10.02 P.I.L. 46 of 2019.odt

¶3

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

¶4

P.I.L. No.46 OF 2019

¶5

Irshad S/o Jabbar Khan

¶6

… Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and others … Respondents

¶9

Mr. Virat Mishra with Mr. Kaustubh Deogade, Advocates for Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Amit Madiwale, AGP for Respondent No.3. Mr. M.I. Dhatrak, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Mr. S.M. Puranik, Advocate for Respondent No.3. Mr. C.P. Bhagwani, Advocate for Respondent No.4. Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.5.

¶11

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR & ANIL S. KILOR, JJ DATE : 10 FEBRUARY 2021

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

¶14

Pursuant to the order passed on 20 January 2021, affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No.2- Municipal Council, Wadi by the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council. The Chief Officer has placed on record that the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 has violated the permission for construction and excess construction have been carried out and the notices have been issued to them on 3 February 2021.

¶15

¶16

10.02 P.I.L. 46 of 2019.odt

¶17

We direct the Chief Officer to take these notices to their logical end after giving due opportunity to the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 and take necessary action within a period of four months from today.

¶18

The construction, in which the Petitioner is residing, is also found to be unauthorized and notices are issued to the owner of the structure, i.e. the mother of the Petitioner. These notices will also be taken to their logical end by the Chief Officer within a period of four months after giving due opportunity to the owner of the structure.

¶19

The Petitioner had filed this Petition stating that he is a social worker and to prove his bona fides, the Petitioner showed his willingness to volunteer in the activities of Legal Services Authority. However, the Petitioner has not reported to the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Nagpur. We, therefore, have a serious doubt of the credentials of the Petitioner of being a social worker. Therefore, though we have taken notice of the unauthorized constructions of the Respondents, we cannot let the court process be abused. While we dispose of the Petition, as above, we impose the costs of Rs.10,000/- on the Petitioner, to be paid to the Legal Services Authority, Nagpur, within a period of four weeks; failing which, the same will be recovered as arrears of land revenue.

¶20

¶21

10.02 P.I.L. 46 of 2019.odt

¶22

The Petition is disposed of as above.

¶23

(ANIL S. KILOR, J) (NITIN JAMDAR, J)

¶24

Lanjewar

¶25

Digitally signed by Prashant Prashant Lanjewar Lanjewar Date: 2021.02.16 11:00:53 +0530

Irshad S/O Jabbar Khan v. the State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary, Public Works Department, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irshad S/O Jabbar Khan v. the State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary, Public Works Department, Mumbai and Others

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

Vaidyakiya Jan Jagruti Manch, Thr. President, Dr. Sachin Sureshreao Pawade Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary Deptt. of Medical Education and Drugs, Mumbai and Others

Sanjay S/O Omprakash Varma and Others Vs National Highway Authority of India, New Delhi through Chairman and Others

Hiralal Magan Chaudhari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Prerna Apang Seva Sanghatna through Its President L K Pokale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sanjay Bhaskarrao Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary

Sanjay Bhaskarrao Kale and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Hadapsar Industrial Estate Environmental Group Vs the Pune Cantonment Board and Ors.

Rahul S/O Ramchand Kishnani and Another Vs Union of India, Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice (Legislative Dept.) and Others

Usha Vijay Tembhurne Vs the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Board, Mumbai and Another

Mr. Rajendra S/O. Premrao Hedau Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Chief Secretary, Mumbai and Others

Himmatrao S/O. Tulshiramji Aathawale and Another Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, the Dept. of Village Development, Mumbai and Others

Abhishek S/O Satish Bakde Vs Joint Commissioner and Vice Chairman, S.T. Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati and Ors.

Sudhakar S/O Ramrao Mohod and Others Vs the Director of Municipal Administration, Mumbai and Others

M/S M.J. Solanki, Nagpur through Authorised Person/Manager, Shri. Prashant S/O Diliprao Admane Vs State of Maharashtra, Rural Development Department, Mumbai through Secretary and Others