Ankush Kacharu Agham And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 11468 Bom

                                                     927-wp-13457-2021.odt




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                   WRIT PETITION NO.13457 OF 2021

1.    Ankush s/o Kacharu Agham
      Age: 39 years, Occu. Labour,
      R/o Bhimraj Nagar, Himayat Bagh,
      Aurangabad

2.    Raju s/o Laxman Agham
      Age: 42 years, Occu.: Labour,
      R/o Bhimraj Nagar, Himayat Bagh,
      Aurangabad.

3.    Jyoti w/o Shaluman Agham
      Age: 38 years, Occu.: Labour,
      R/o. Bhimraj Nagar, Himayat Bagh,
      Aurangabad.

4.    Sunita w/o Shaluman Agham
      Age: 34 yeas, Occu.: Labour,
      R/o Datta Nagr, Himayat Bagh,
      Aurangabad.

5.    Shaluman s/o Laxman Agham
      Age: 41 years, Occu.: Labour,
      R/o Jatwada Road, Harsul,
      Aurangabad.

6.    Alka w/o Raju Agham
      Age: 38 years, Occu.: Labour,
      R/o. Bhimraj Nagar, Himayat Bagh,
      Aurangabad.

7.    Vijay s/o Raju Agham
      Age: 21 years, Occu.: Labour,
      R/o. Bhimraj Nagar, Himayat Bagh,
      Aurangabad.

8.    Mira w/o Ankush Agham
      Age: 32 years, Occ.: Labour,
      R/o. Bhimraj Nagar, Himayat Bagh,
      Aurangabad.




                                (1)


 ::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2022             ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2022 00:29:19 :::
                                                      927-wp-13457-2021.odt




9.    Shakuntalabai w/o Kacharu Agham
      Age: 43 years, Occu.: Labour,
      R/o. Maulana Azad Colony, Aurangabad

10.   Kacharu s/o Sahebrao Agham
      Age: 66 years, Occu: Labour,
      R/o Maulana Azad Colony, Aurangabad

11.   Ajay s/o Raju Agham
      Age: 19 years, Occu.: Labour,
      R/o. Bhimraj Nagar, Himayat Bagh,
      Aurangabad.

12.   Vijay s/o Gangadhar Chandane
      Age: 39 years, Occu.: Labour,
      R/o Bhimraj Nagar, Himayat Bagh,
      Aurangabad.

13.   Dwarkabai w/o Babasaheb Thorat
      Age: 50 years, Occu.: Labour,
      R/o Harsul Road, Himayat Bagh,
      Aurangabad.

14.   Savita w/o Santosh Thorat
      Age: 29 years, Occu.: Labour,
      R/o. Bhimraj Nagar, Harsul,
      Aurangabad.

15.   Ankush s/o Babasaheb Thorat
      Age: 32 years, Occu.: Labour,
      R/o. Harsul Road, Himayat Bagh,
      Aurangabad.

16.   Jyoti w/o Ankush Thorat,
      Age: 28 years, Occu.: Labour,
      R/o. Bhimraj Nagar, Harsul,
      Aurangabad                                        .. Petitioners

               Versus

1.    The State of Maharashtra
      Through its Secretary of Urban
      Development
      Mantralaya, Mumbai




                                (2)


 ::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2022             ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2022 00:29:19 :::
                                                                  927-wp-13457-2021.odt




2.       The Divisional Commissioner,
         Aurangabad Division,
         Aurangabad.

3.       The Collector,
         Collector Office,
         Aurangabad.

4.       The Commissioner,
         Municipal Corporation,
         Aurangabad.

5.       The Chief Administrator,
         Administration Department,
         CIDCO, Aurangabad.                                         .. Respondents

                                   ...
Mr. Swapnil Joshi i/b J. P. Legal Associates, Advocate for petitioners.
Mr. A. S. Shinde, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3 - State.
Mr. S. S. Tope, Advocate for respondent No.4.
Mrs. Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar, Advocate for respondent No.5.
                                   ...

                           CORAM :     SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
                                       Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.

                             DATE :    11th November, 2022.

JUDGMENT :-              (Per Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.)


.        Rule.      Rule      made    returnable   forthwith.      Heard       learned

Advocates for the parties finally, by consent.


2.       In the petition, the petitioners had sought directions that their

representation dated 05.04.2021, which they have made basically

to respondent No.4, to be decided. Learned Advocate representing

respondent No.4 submits that respondent No.4 would decide the

said representation on its own merits. The representation appears


                                          (3)


    ::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2022                      ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2022 00:29:19 :::
                                                                     927-wp-13457-2021.odt




to be in respect of rehabilitation of the slum and removal of

encroachment as well as widening of the road at the bottleneck.

Learned Advocate for the petitioners submit that the tender for the

road has been floated and, therefore, the representation of the

petitioners to some extent has been considered but it ought to have

been considered in the light the petitioners want, however, that can

be    done      on        its    merits   by    respondent     No.4.      Under        such

circumstance, the petition can be disposed of by giving necessary

directions to respondent No.4. Hence, the following order :-

                                          ORDER

I) The writ petition stands partly allowed.

II) Respondent No.4 to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 05.04.2021 on its own merits within a period of four months, by giving a hearing to the representatives of the petitioners. The decision taken be communicated to those representatives.

III) With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

IV) Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

[Y. G. KHOBRAGADE]                               [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI]
      JUDGE                                                 JUDGE


scm