Vijay Uma Shankar Mishra vs The Commissioner Municipal ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 11909 Bom

                                                     12-PIL.35.2022


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

       PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 35 OF 2022

Dr. Vijay Uma Shankar Mishra              }   Petitioner
          versus
The Commissioner,                         }
Municipal Corporation of                  }
Greater Mumbai and Ors.                   }   Respondents



Dr. Vijay Umashankar Mishra, petitioner in-person
through VC.
Ms. Rupali Adhate for respondent no. 1 (MCGM).
Mr. Abhijit Patil i/b. Mr. Jagdish G. Aradwad (Reddy)
for respondent no. 2 (SRA).
Mr. Milind More, Additional Government Pleader
with Ms. Uma S. Palsuledesai, AGP for respondents
3 and 9 (State).
Mr. Malcolm Siganporia i/b. Mr. Jayesh R. Vyas for
respondents 4 and 5.
Mr. Bhushan Deshmukh with Mr. Shakeeb Shaikh
and Mr. Huda Diamondwala i/b. Diamondwala and
Co. for respondent no. 6.
Mr. Rubin Vakil with Ms. Sonam Mhatre i/b. Dhaval
Vussonji and Associates for respondents 7 and 8.


                        CORAM: DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ. &
                               ABHAY AHUJA, J.

                        DATE:     NOVEMBER 21, 2022


P.C.:

1. Preliminary objection to the maintainability of this writ petition has been taken by Mr. Deshmukh, learned advocate for the respondent no. 6 by citing a judgment and order dated

J.V.Salunke,PS 12-PIL.35.2022

5th October 2018 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court while dismissing Writ Petition No. 1654 of 2018, Writ Petition (L) No. 760 of 2018, Writ Petition No. 422 of 2018 and Writ Petition No. 822 of 2018.

2. Prima facie, the issues raised in this public interest litigation appear to be covered by the said judgment and order dated 5th October 2018.

3. However, the judgment rendered in Writ Petition No. 1654 of 2018 records certain assurances given on behalf of the respondent no. 6 by its senior counsel. Paragraph 23 of the judgment being relevant, reads as follows: -

"23. Learned Senior Counsel for the Developer on instructions makes a statement that the Respondent no. 6 - Developer would abide by the assurances which are recorded in the Minutes of Meeting dated 25/05/2016. He further submits on instructions of Respondent No. 6 that the assurances recorded in the Minutes of the Meting dated 25/05/2016 would also apply to eligible licenced rassi holders who are members of the present Petitioner Society as well as Petitioner licenced rassi holders who are eligible in connected Petitions. He submits that Respondent No. 6-Developer will construct and hand over Dhobighat reserved building as per SRA norms to MCGM whereafter the MCGM will rehabilitate the rope holders as per the list submitted by MCGM of eligible licenced rassi/rope holders. The learned Senior Counsel further undertakes that the eligible licenced rassi/rope holders of the Petitioner-Society would be provided with temporary alternate arrangement for drying the clothes till the permanent arrangement is made. The undertaking by Respondent no. 6 is accepted."

4. At this stage, there is no affidavit on record from the side of the respondent no. 6 pleading that the assurances that it had given before the coordinate Bench on 5th October 2018 have been observed and that the building, which the

J.V.Salunke,PS 12-PIL.35.2022

respondent no. 6 was supposed to construct, has been handed over to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) for use by the dhobis and rassi/rope holders. There was also an assurance that till such time the building is complete, temporary arrangement would be provided for drying the clothes. One of the reasons for dismissal of the writ petition was the assurances given on behalf of the respondent no. 6.

5. We require the respondent no. 6 to put on affidavit the steps that have been taken and/or it proposes to take in terms of the assurances as recorded in paragraph 23 of the aforesaid judgment and order. Let such affidavit be filed by 2 (two) weeks from date. After such affidavit is filed, the MCGM shall respond to such affidavit and say to what extent the statements made therein are correct. MCGM shall have further 2 (two) weeks' time to file its affidavit.

6. Once the affidavits are filed by the respondent no. 6 and the MCGM, the petitioner shall have 2 (two) weeks' time to file his rejoinder affidavit.

7. List the PIL petition on 16th January 2022.

                            (ABHAY AHUJA, J.)                        (CHIEF JUSTICE)
          Digitally
          signed by
          PRAVIN
PRAVIN    DASHARATH
DASHARATH PANDIT
PANDIT    Date:
          2022.11.23
          10:29:01
          +0530





                       J.V.Salunke,PS