Disposed

Courts on Its Own Motion v. Msedcl Offices, Maha. State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC24 Jan 2024CAO/1736/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bench disposed of multiple pending Civil Applications filed under PIL No. 70/2017, citing various grounds such as the subject matter being demolished, funds deposited, or relevant authorities ceased, while granting time to file responses and adjourning others.

What did the court decide?

Various Civil Applications were disposed of as infructuous, stand over for response, or dismissed for lack of hearing.

Courts on Its Own Motion Vs Msedcl Offices, Maha… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

917-PIL-70-17.od t

¶2

1/3

¶3

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

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 70 OF 20 17

¶5

Court on its own motion

¶6

-vs-

¶7

State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Urban Development Dept. Mantralaya, Mumbai and ors.

¶8

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

¶9

Shri S. P. Bhandarkar, Amicus Curiae. Shri A. S. Fulzele, Additional Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1, 2, 11 to 13. Shri S. V. Purohit, Advocate for respondent No.3. Shri A. M. Quazi, Advocate for respondent No.4. Shri D. M. Kale, Advocate for respondent No.5. Shri G. A. Kunte, Advocate for respondent Nos.7 and 10/Applicant in CAO/1736/2019 Shri S. M. Puranik, Advocate for respondent Nos.8 and 9. Dr Shri Anjan De, Advocate for respondent No.14, Applicant in CAO/179/2020 Smt M. R. Chandurkar, Advocate for respondent No.15. Shri S. Wahane, Advocate for respondent No.17. Shri P. B. Patil, Advocate for respondent No.18. Shri S. R. Bhongade, Advocate for respondent No.19. Shri S. R. Narnaware, Advocate for applicant in CAO/1713/2019. Shri S. S. Ghate, Advocate for applicant in CAO/2090/2019. Shri Jeet Biswas, Advocate for applicant in CAO/648/2022. Shri M. D. Lakhey, Advocate for applicant in CAO/2222/2019.

¶10

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ. DATE : January 24, 2024

¶11

Civil Application No.179/2020

¶12

We permit Shri A. De, learned counsel appearing for applicant/respondent No.14 to submit his response in view of the findings recorded by the Expert’s Committee holding the said respondent No.14 as one of the persons responsible for cause of accident and loss of child.

¶13

Let the response be filed within two weeks.

¶14

Stand over to 14/02/2024. To be heard along with Civil Application No.1227/2019.

¶15

917-PIL-70-17.od t

¶16

2/3

¶17

Civil Application Nos.517/2019, 2103/2019

¶18

The learned counsel for the non-applicants are granted time of three weeks as last chance to file response. Stand over to 14/02/2024.

¶19

Civil Application No.2090/2019

¶20

Shri S. S. Ghate, learned counsel for the applicant/s submits that the application is not pressed. As such Civil Application is disposed of.

¶21

Civil Application No.1736/2019

¶22

This is an application moved by respondent Nos.7 and 10 Nagpur Improvement Trust based on subsequent development in view of Notification dated 27/08/2019. It is claimed that the respondentNagpur Improvement Trust was ceased to be the Planning Authority in relation to Seven Schemes mentioned therein which are informed to have again restored to Municipal Corporation.

¶23

That being so, the application, in our opinion has rendered infructuous. Same is disposed of accordingly.

¶24

Civil Application No.1713/2019

¶25

Shri S. R. Narnaware, learned counsel for the applicant/s submits that since the subject matter of the application that is the structure is already demolished, the application be disposed of as rendered infructuous.

¶26

The Civil Application is disposed of as infructuous.

¶27

Civil Application No.1142/2017

¶28

We have considered the prayer made in this application.

¶29

We direct the the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 to look into the grievance made by respondent Nos.7 and 10 and make available the requisite information as sought within a period of eight

917-PIL-70-17.od t

3/3

weeks from today.

The Civil Application is disposed of in above terms.

¶34

Civil Application No.460/2018

¶35

Shri A. De, learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the amount has already been deposited pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the application has rendered infructuous.

¶36

The Civil Application is disposed of as infructuous.

¶37

Civil Application No.2293/2018

¶38

Shri A. De, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the application has rendered infructuous.

¶39

The Civil Application is disposed of as infructuous.

¶40

Civil Application Nos.1149/2017, 409/2018 and 1718/2018

¶41

None for the applicants.

¶42

Stand over to 14/02/2014 for dismissal.

¶43

Public Interest Litigation No.70/2017 with Civil Application Nos.648/2022, 2222/2019, 516/2019

¶44

Since this Court has already permitted the respondents/applicants/non-applicants to collect the report of the Expert’s Committee, we deem it appropriate to grant time to the respondents/applicants/non-applicants to file response to the findings recorded by the Committee by the next date.

¶45

Stand over to 14/02/2024.

¶46

(Abhay J. Mantri, J.) (Nitin W. Sambre, J.)

¶47

Asmita

Courts on Its Own Motion v. Msedcl Offices, Maha. State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Courts on Its Own Motion v. Msedcl Offices, Maha. State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. 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

Dinesh S/O Ganeshrao Hiwarale and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Sabir Khan Shabbir Khan Vs the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati and Others

Shri Shridhar S/O Shankarrao Hawale, Nagpur Vs State of Mah. Thr. Principal Secty., Mumbai and 2 Otrs

Dhanraj Tulshiram Randive Vs State of Maha. Thr. Its Secretary, Dept. of Rural Development and Water Conservation Mumbai and Anr.

Courts on Its Own Motion Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Courts on Its Own Motion Vs Msedcl Offices, Maha. State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. Mumbai and Others