Mumbai Public Welfare ... vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 5985 Bom

                                            1/2
                                                                                  wp-636-04.doc


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      O.O.C.J.




                                                                               
                         WRIT PETITION NO.636 OF 2004
                                         ...




                                                       
    Mumbai Public Welfare Association                    ...Petitioner
          v/s.
    State of Maharashtra and ors.                        ...Respondents
                                         ...
    None for the Petitioner.




                                                      
    Mr.L.T.Satelkar, AGP for the State.
    Ms.Sonia Putta i/b Solomon & Co. for the Respondent No.3.
                                         ...
                                      CORAM : A.S.OKA &




                                          
                                                       A.A. SAYED, JJ.

ORAL JUDGMEENT: (Per A.S.Oka,J.) DATED : 13 OCTOBER 2016

None appears for the Petitioner. The Writ Petition is in the nature of

PIL. The question is whether with the passage of time, the writ of

mandamus which is sought in the Petition can be granted. At the relevant

time, when the Petition was filed, the prayer was based on reservation

provided in the development plan.

2. If the reservation provided in the development plan for construction of

a road between Mahakali Caves Road and Central MIDC Road continues to

exist, it is for the Petitioner to make appropriate representation to the

Planning Authority in that behalf.

    Uday.P.Kambli                              1/2






                                                                                 wp-636-04.doc

3. We are sure that if such representation is made the same shall be

expeditiously decided in accordance with law.

4. Subject to what is observed above, the Petition is disposed of. Rule is

discharged with no order as to costs.

              (A.A. SAYED, J.)                                 (A.S.OKA, J.)




                                          
                                  
                                 
      
   






    Uday.P.Kambli                             2/2