Disposed

K P Purushothaman Nair v. Den (Estate) South, Mct

Bombay HC24 Oct 2024PIL/75/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PIL concerning non-construction of a footpath in Mumbai causing hardship to pedestrians. The court dispensed with notice to respondents 1 and 2 and disposed of the petition directing MMRDA's competent authority to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12 June 2024 and take appropriate action under law.

What did the court decide?

Direction to MMRDA's competent authority to consider petitioner's representation dated 12.06.2024 and act as warranted by law.

K P Purushothaman Nair vs Den (Estate) South, Mct — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

401-ospil75-2024.doc

¶2

AGK

¶3

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

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.75 OF 2024

¶5

K.P. Purushothaman Nair … Petitioner V/s.

¶6

DEN (Estate, South, MCT & Ors. … Respondents

¶7

Digitally signed byATUL ATULGANESH GANESHKULKARNI KULKARNI Date: 2024.10.24 15:22:39 +0530

¶8

Mr. Samarth Jaidev i/by Mrs. Asha P. Nair for the petitioner.

¶9

Ms. Oorja Dhond i/by Ms. Komal Punjabi for respondent No.3 – MCGM.

¶10

CORAM : DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ & AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶11

DATED : OCTOBER 24, 2024

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Dhond, representing respondent No.3 – Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai.

¶14

Having regard to the proposed order, requirement of issuance of notice to respondent Nos.1 and 2 is hereby dispensed.

¶15

The grievance raised in this petition is in relation to construction of footpath.

¶16

¶17

401-ospil75-2024.doc

¶18

It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is respondent No.2 – Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (MMRDA) who has the responsibility of constructing the footpath, and on account of non-availability of the footpath, a lot of problems have been caused to the pedestrians.

¶19

Having regard to the nature of issue raised, we dispose of the PIL petition with a direction to the appropriate authority of MMRDA to consider and take appropriate decision on the representation said to have been made by the petitioner, dated 12th June 2024, which has been enclosed as Exhibit-E to this petition.

¶20

For the said purpose, the petitioner shall produce a copy of this order along with said representation before the authority concerned within ten days’ from today, whereupon the competent authority of the MMRDA shall consider the representation and take a decision and action which will be warranted under law.

¶21

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶22

(CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶23

K P Purushothaman Nair v. Den (Estate) South, Mct

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K P Purushothaman Nair v. Den (Estate) South, Mct

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

Santosh Suresh Patil vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secretary Revenue and Forest Department and Ors.

Somesh Nagnath Kshirsagar and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Ors.

Sachin Ranganath Bhagat vs Pune Municipal Corporation Thr Deputy Engineer and Ors.

Sharmila W/O Sandesh Ghuge vs University of Mumbai through Registrar

Rajat Banerjee vs City and Industrial Development and Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (Cidco Ltd)

Sandeep Mohanlal Pahuja vs Chief Settlement Commissioner and Ors.

Shri. Nagnath Uddhav Kadam vs the State of Maharashtra through Prin. Secretary, Dept. of Textile and Co-Op. and Ors.

Jaydeep Shivajirao Shinde and Ors. vs Learned District Collector Satara and

Gujarati Kelavani Mandal vs the General Manager, Central Railway

Raviraj Vikas Takawane vs the State of Maharashtra through Department of Medical Education and Drugs Department

Hema Bhavin Ravasia vs the State of Maharastra

Bhavini Kirtesh Shah vs Deepen Suresh Dhanwani

Moiez Shabbit Lokhandwala vs Narcotics Control Bureau

Premchand Ratanchand Javeri vs the State of Maharashtra the Principal Sec. Environment Dept and Ors.