Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Thr Asst. Commissioner 'L' Ward v. Gaurav Gadkari and Anr.

Bombay HC29 May 2024WP/7796/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Municipal Corporation challenged a State Human Rights Commission order concerning revocation of a carriageway permission granted to a developer's employee. The vacation court noted disputed facts and the open question whether any human rights violation was involved, granted ad-interim stay of the impugned order and posted the petition for admission.

What did the court decide?

Ad-interim stay of the Human Rights Commission order dated 08.05.2024 in terms of prayer clause (c); matter posted for admission on 18.06.2024.

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Thr Asst… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

14 WP-7796-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 7796 OF 2024

¶4

Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai Through Assistant Commissioner 'L' Ward …Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Gaurav Gadkari And Anr. …Respondents

¶7

¶8

Mr. Prahlad Paranjape (through VC), Ms. Trupti Puranik, Mr. Amol Diwate and Mr. R.Y. Sirsikar, for Petitioner.

¶9

Mr. S.U. Kamdar, Senior Advocate a/w. Ms. Silpa Nair, Mr. Amogh Singh, Ms. Bhavi Vora, Mr. Uttam Shukla, Mr.Ankit Pandey i/b. Jeet Gandhi, for Respondent No.1.

¶10

Mr. H.D. Mulla, AGP for Respondent No.2.

¶11

¶12

Digitally signed HUSENBASHARAHAMANNADAF by HUSENBASHARAHAMANNADAFDate: 2024.05.29 21:14:07 +0530

¶13

CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.

¶14

DATED : 29 MAY 2024 (VACATION COURT)

¶15

P.C. :

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶17

By this Petition, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai is challenging an order dated 08.05.2024 passed by the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission in KKT / Case No. 1979/13/16/2024. The Municipal Corporation is also seeking urgent ad-interim stay to the said order.

¶18

Learned counsel for the Petitioner Municipal Corporation has invited this Court’s attention to the operative part of the order in

Page 1 of 4

Husen

14 WP-7796-2024.doc

which the Human Rights Commission has advised the Municipal Corporation to revoke an order dated 24.02.2023, pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- with interest @ 8% p.a. in case of default and to take appropriate departmental action against the concerned officer issuing the said order. The impugned order also directs that the plot owner and occupiers visitors are permitted to access site from the DP Road called Kajupada Road without any restriction and the order also directs the police authority to provide necessary protection.

¶23

Learned senior Advocate Mr. Kamdar appearing for the Respondent No.1/original Complainant submits that the Complainant has filed the complaint on behalf of his employer namely M/s. Piramal Realty Pvt. Ltd. in whose favour the carriage way permission was granted on 20.01.2023, which is unilaterally revoked by the Municipal Corporation on 24.02.2023, which was impugned before the Human Rights Commission. He submitted that public road cannot be blocked under the garb of cancellation of permission.

¶24

This Court is called upon during vacation to consider urgent ad-interim relief.

¶25

Perusal of the complaint by Respondent No. 1 shows that it is not filed by the entity namely M/s. Piramal Realty Pvt. Ltd. whose permission is revoked/ cancelled. Though it is asserted by the Complainant/ Respondent No.1that he is undertaking the project on behalf of the employer, it is not understood at this stage, why the developer itself has not come forward. Additionally, the revocation of

Page 2 of 4

Husen

14 WP-7796-2024.doc

carriage way licence or its cancallation can also be challenged either under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act or under common civil law remedy, is the submission of the PetitionerMunicipal Corporation. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kamdar submits that approaching the Human Rights Commission is also one of the remedies and the employee of the developer has chosen that remedy and no fault can be found with that. He also submits that there is political influence at work in this case. He relies upon para 7 & 8 of the complaint in support thereof. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that this case is never made out. Perusal of said paragraphs do not indicate case of political influence.

¶30

Be that as it may. From the nature of averments and the directions issued under the impugned order, it is obvious that the matter will have to be heard in detail. Considering the disputed factual aspects involved and legal issue as to whether really any human rights violation issue is involved, in my prima facie opinion, the impugned order needs to be stayed till the matter is taken up by the regular Court for hearing on merits.

¶31

Hence, place this Petition for admission and further orders on 18.06.2024 before the regular Court.

¶32

Till the next date, there shall be ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c) which reads thus:

¶33

“(c) During the pendency of the hearing and final disposal of the present Writ Petition, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the effect, execution,

Page 3 of 4

Husen

14 WP-7796-2024.doc

operation and implementation of Order dated 8 May 2024 passed by the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission.”

¶38

All contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶39

All concerned to act on authenticated or digitally signed copy of this order.

¶40

Page 4 of 4

¶41

Husen

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Thr Asst. Commissioner 'L' Ward v. Gaurav Gadkari and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Thr Asst. Commissioner 'L' Ward v. Gaurav Gadkari and Anr.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rafik Hasham Mulla vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shri. Sant Kurmadas Sahakari Karkhana Ltd. through S.P. Binage vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation through Its Assistant

Nirav Ashok Desai and Ors. vs the Divisional Joint Registrar Co. Operative Societies Mumbai Division and Ors.

Mehrunnisa Abdul Ajij Khan vs the Competent Authority Konkan Division Mumbai and Ors.

Shaikh Tajuddin Lal Mohammad vs Mhada through Its Chief Officer

Pruthviraj Sahebrao Jachak vs State of Maharashtra Thr Department of Co. Operation Marketing and Textile and Ors.