Writ petition of 1991 concerning alleged inaction and discrimination by respondents was described by counsel as a Public Interest Litigation. The court permitted MHADA to file its reply and directed the Registry to place the matter before the bench handling PIL matters.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
25-OSWP-2386-1991+.DOC
Sumedh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2386 OF 1991
WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 372 OF 2010
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 2386 OF 1991
WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 254 OF 2017
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 2386 OF 1991
WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 372 OF 2010
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 2386 OF 1991
Onkarnath Lalchandji Karwa Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors
…Petitioner
…Respondents
Mr VY Sanglikar , for the Petitioner.
Mr PG Lad , with Sayli Apte, Shreya Shah, for the RespondentMHADA.
Digitally signed by SUMEDH SUMEDH NAMDEO NAMDEO SONAWANE SONAWANE Date: 2024.07.29 18:12:19 +0530
Mr Milind More, Addl GP with Ms Uma Palsuledesai, AGP , for the Respondent-State.
Page 1 of 3 29th July 2024
25-OSWP-2386-1991+.DOC
CORAM M.S. Sonak & Kamal Khata, JJ. DATED: 29th July 2024
PC:-
1. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development (“MHADA”) is permitted to file its reply and a copy of which has already been served on learned counsel for the Petitioner.
2. The learned counsel for the parties invited our attention to averments in paragraph No. 2 of this Petition which reads as follows:
“2. This Petition is filed in the interest of general members of the public and in particular the inhabitants and residents of Bombay and Maharashtra State. This Petition relates to inaction and failure on the part of the Respondents to act according to law, justice and fair play and relates also to illegal acts and unfair discrimination and favouritism and usurping of the rights of the Petitioner and other members of the public and citizens of Bombay. The Petitioner submits that if the appropriate reliefs are not forthwith granted, the above wrongful and illegal acts, procedure and practice may be continued and escalate, depriving the innocent and trusting citizens of Maharashtra and Bombay of their just and legitimate rights and fundamental justice by surreptitious manipulations and tactics.”
Page 2 of 3 29th July 2024
25-OSWP-2386-1991+.DOC
3. Mr Sanglikar, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that this Petition is in fact in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation. He points out that even chamber summons has been taken out to elaborate on this aspect.
4. Considering the submissions made and the averments made in paragraph No. 2 of this Petition, the Registry to place this matter before the bench taking up Public Interest Litigation.
5. The Registry to do the needful.
(Kamal Khata, J)
(M.S. Sonak, J)
Page 3 of 3 29th July 2024
1 issue framed by the court
Should the writ petition, described as a public interest litigation, be transferred to the PIL bench?
Onkarnath Lalchandji Karwa
State of Maharashtra
MHADA
M.S. Sonak
Kamal Khata
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
22 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
