Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Murlidhar Teckchand Gandhi vs State Of Maharashtra . on 29 August, 2017
Bench: Arun Mishra, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11077 OF 2017
[@Special Leave Petition (C) NO. 14732 of 2016]
MURLIDHAR TECKCHAND GANDHI & ORS. ..APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. ..RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Leave granted.
The appellants aggrieved by the judgment and orders passed by the High Court of judicature at Bombay, dismissing the writ application are in appeal. The acquisition of the property bearing No.CTS No.165,165/1 to 51 admeasuring 2668.11 sq. meters at Village Kanjur, Taluka Kurla, Mumbai vide notification No.DAL/2002/LR-459/SLUM-1 dated 31st May 2006 issued under Signature Not Verified Section 14 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas Digitally signed by BALA PARVATHI (Improvement, Clearance, and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (in Date: 2017.09.12 10:07:50 IST Reason:
short, “the Act”).2
It is not in dispute that in the year 1976, the property was declared as slum area under the provisions of Section 4 of the Slum Act. However, the Slum Tribunal set the declaration aside.
The appellant purchased the property on 19.4.1982 in distress sale when it was already declared as the slum area. The second declaration under Section 4 of the Slums Act was issued. Again, it was questioned and set aside by the Tribunal on the technical ground on 19.1.1983.
On 17.6.1997, the Deputy Collector issued a preliminary notice to all the appellants asking them to remove the defects from the property and to improve it. Again on 8.7.1997 and 19.7.1997, notices were issued asking them to remove the defects and improve the slum area.
Thereafter, the 3rd declaration was issued on 20.8.1997, declaring it to be a “slum area”. It was declared that there was no light, sanitation or drainage system in the place. On 12.12.1997, the Maharashtra Slum Area Tribunal, Mumbai, upheld the declaration that was 3 issued. However, a period of three months was granted to the appellant to improve, failing which competent authority was free to adopt any scheme for redevelopment by proceeding under Section 14 of the Act.
Again the appellant questioned the order of Tribunal by filing writ petition No. 851 of 1998 on 17.4.1998. Interim stay on notification dated 20.8.1997 was granted. On 3.7.1998, the notice under Section 14 (1) of 1971 Act was issued to the appellants to show cause as to why the property be not acquired. A Single Judge of Bombay High Court on 17.4.2001 dismissed the writ petition on merits. Thereafter, writ appeal was preferred that too was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay on 31.7.2001. Again, notice for hearing under Section 14 (1) of the Act had been issued by the office of the Collector on 20.4.2002. Thereafter, the Special Leave Petition preferred in this Court was dismissed on 15.7.2002. Thus, notification declaring ‘slum’ under section 4 of Act attained finality.
During the pendency of the writ application, the Single Bench had granted the interim order on 11.6.1998 4 staying operation of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. When interim order was in force, a show cause notice was issued under Section 14 (1) of the Act on 3.7.1998. The reply to the show cause notice was submitted. However, the respondents owing to the interim stay of the High Court took no further steps. After the dismissal of the writ appeal by the High Court and vacation of the interim order a notice of hearing was issued on 20.4.2002 for the purpose of deciding the objection under Section 14(1) of the Act by the concerned Collector. Appellants filed replies on 29.4.2002, 15.6.2002 and 24.6.2002 and raised objections. Ultimately, notification under Section 14 (1) was issued on 31.5.2006. Thereafter, 98% of slum dwellers consented to appoint M/s. Pooja Developers Pvt Ltd. for the development of the slum area. Again a notice of hearing was given to the appellants and the slum dwellers for a date fixed for hearing on 23.8.2006. Thereafter, show cause notice for passing an award was served on 11.12.2006. On 10.1.2007, the Deputy Collector passed award under Section 17 (5) determining the compensation. Appellants prayed for enhancement of compensation by way 5 of filing the appeal No.2/2007 before Slum Tribunal. However, later on, they withdrew their appeal.
Second Writ Petition No.165 of 2007 was preferred before the High Court of Bombay. After slum dwellers deposited the amount, the possession was taken on 31.1.2007. The High Court by the impugned judgment and order dismissed the writ application. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been preferred.
The High Court has held that ample opportunities were given to the appellants to make an improvement, but they failed to make any improvement whatsoever. Considering the facts and circumstances, no other recourse was left to the authorities except to proceed under Section 14(1) of the Act. There was no illegality found in the acquisition of the land under the Act.
It was urged by Shri Shyam Diwan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that there was non-compliance of the mandatory procedure of the Act as provided under Sections 3, 5, 11, 12 and 13 which ought to have been resorted to before issuing notification under section 4 of the Act. It was also 6 urged that show-cause notice issued under Section 14 of the Act is non-est. As due to the operation of the interim order of stay on notification under section 4 of the Act, there was no slum area as such in terms of Section 4 of the Slum Act.
He has further urged that Expropriatory legislations have to be construed strictly and it has to be strictly implemented. He has also attracted our attention to the provisions of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Right to property is a human as well as the Constitutional Right. As the owner is ready to develop the same, an opportunity should have been given to the owner to develop it instead of giving it to a private developer. He has further submitted that M/s. Pooja Developers with a profit motive has shown the number of tenements as 114, whereas the number of tenements was only 62, which can be verified from the records of the case viz. the Commissioner’s Report. When the appellants are willing to develop the land, as evident from various documents on record, they ought to have been afforded an opportunity to develop the same. 7
Learned senior counsel lastly argued that as an amount of Rs.5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores) have been deposited in the Registry as per the directions of this Court dated 1.7.2016, that is a persuasive consideration to permit appellant to re-develop the area in question. Thus, appellant should not be deprived of property by acquisition and should have been given the opportunity to develop it.
Shri Tushar R. Mehta, Additional Solicitor General, and Shri Ashok H. Desai learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents urged that it was not necessary to make compliance with the provisions of Sections 3, 5, 11, 12 and 13 of the Act while invoking the provisions of acquisition under Section 14. Section 14 is an independent provision and its operation is not dependent upon compliance with the provisions of Sections 3, 5, 11, 12 and 13. Opportunities were granted to the appellants to improve the conditions of the slum, its condition has been noted by the High Court in its order. Though earlier notice under Section 14 was issued thereafter, fresh notice for hearing was issued after the 8 Division Bench had dismissed the previous writ appeal which order was challenged before this Court. When the interim order was operative, no final order was passed. Appellants have prayed for enhancement of compensation for which they filed an appeal, which was later withdrawn. Fair and due procedure of law have been followed and compensation had been determined. Thus, there was no violation of provisions of Article 300 A of the Constitution of India. With respect to the development, after the acquisition, it is the choice of the slum dwellers and they decided it to hand-over the project for redevelopment by entering into an agreement under the Development Control Regulation No. 33 (10) to M/s. Pooja Developers.
First, we consider the question raised by the learned senior counsel on non-compliance of the provisions of Act. Sections 5, 11, 12(10), 13 and 14 are extracted hereunder:
“[5 Power of Competent Authority of execution of works of improvement] (1) Where the Competent Authority is satisfied that any slum area or any part thereof is capable of being improved, at a reasonable 9 expense, so as not be a source of danger to the health, safety or convenience of the public of that area, it may serve upon the owner or owners and every mortgagee of the properties in that area or any part thereof, a notice informing them of its intention to carry out such improvement works as in its opinion are necessary and asking each of them to submit his objections or suggestions, if any, to the Competent Authority, within thirty days from the date of such notice. A copy of such notice shall also be displayed at some conspicuous places in the area for the information of the occupants thereof and for giving them also an opportunity to submit their objections or suggestions if any. On such display of the notice, the owners, occupiers and all other persons concerned shall be deemed to have been duly informed of the matters stated therein.
(2) After considering the objections and suggestions received within the time aforesaid, from the owners, occupiers and other persons concerned, the Competent Authority may decide and proceed to carry out the improvement works with or without modifications or may postpone them for a certain period or cancel the intention to undertake the works.]
11. Power to declare any slum area to be a clearance area (1) Where the Competent Authority, upon a report from any of its officers or other information in its possession, is satisfied as respects any slum area, that the most satisfactory method of dealing with the conditions in the area is the demolition of all the buildings in the area, the Authority shall cause that area to be defined on a map in such manner as to exclude from the area any building which is not unfit for human consumption or dangerous or injurious to health, and then it shall, by an order notified in the Official Gazette, declare the 10 area so defined to be a clearance area, that is to say, an area to be cleared of all buildings in accordance with the provisions of this Act. The order shall also be given wide publicity in such manner as may be prescribed.
(2) Before any area is declared to be a clearance area, the Competent Authority shall satisfy itself as to the sufficiency of its resources, and ascertain the number of persons who are likely to be dishoused in such area, and thereafter, to take such measures as are practicable whether by the arrangement of its programme or by securing as far as practicable such accommodation in advance of displacements which will from time to time become necessary as the demolition of buildings in the area, or in different parts thereof proceeds, or in any other manner so as to ensure that as little hardship as possible is inflicted on those dishoused. The State Government may, subject to the provisions of Chapter V, and subject to the condition of previous publication, make rules for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this sub-section; and without prejudice to the generality of this provision, Such rules may provide for ascertaining the number and names of persons who on a date to be specified by the Competent Authority were occupying the buildings comprised in the clearance area, for the location of the accommodation either temporary or permanent and extent of floor areas to be provided to those who are dishoused, for occupying the building after it is re-erected, for rent to be paid for the temporary accommodation provided to those who are dishoused, the circumstances in which persons provided with temporary accommodation may be evicted, and for purposes connected with the matter aforesaid. The provisions of sub-section (2) of section 46 shall apply in relation to rules made under this section as they apply to rules made under that section.
(3) The Competent Authority shall forthwith 11 transmit to the Administrator a copy of the declaration under this section, together with a map and statement of the number of persons who, on the date specified by the Competent Authority under sub-section (2), were occupying buildings comprised in the clearance area.
12. Clearance order (10) Subject to the provisions of this Act, and of any other law for the time being in force in relation to town planning and to the regulation of the erection of buildings where a clearance order has become operative, the owner of the land to which the 1[clearance order] applies, may redevelop the, land in accordance with the plans approved by the Competent Authority, and subject to such restrictions and conditions (including a condition with regard to the time within which the redevelopment, shall be completed), if any, as that Authority may think fit to impose :
Provided that an owner who is aggrieved by a restriction or condition so imposed on the user of his land, or by a subsequent refusal of the Competent Authority to cancel or modify any such restriction or condition may, within such time as may be prescribed, appeal to the Tribunal and its decision shall be final.
13. Power of Competent Authority to redevelop clearance area (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of section 12 the Competent Authority may, at any time after the land has been cleared of buildings in accordance with a clearance order, but before the work of redevelopment of that land has been commenced by the owner, by order, determine to redevelop the land at its own cost, if that Authority is satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest to do so.
(2) Where land has been cleared of the 12 buildings in accordance with a clearance order, the Competent Authority, if it is satisfied that the land has been, or is being, redeveloped by the owner thereof in contravention of plans duly approved, or any restrictions or conditions imposed under sub-section (10) of section 12, or has not been redeveloped within the time, if any, specified under such conditions, may, by order, determine to redevelop the land at its own cost:
Provided that, before passing such order, the owner shall be given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why the order should not be passed.
14. Power of State Government to acquire land (1) Where on any representation from the Competent Authority it appears to the State Government that, in order to enable the Authority 1[to execute any work of improvement in relation to any slum area or any building in such area or] to redevelop any clearance area, it is necessary that any land within adjoining or surrounded by any such area should be acquired, the State Government may acquire the land by publishing in the Official Gazette, a notice to the effect that the State Government has decided to acquire the land in pursuance of this section:
2 [Provided that, before publishing such notice, the State Government, or as the case may be, the Collector may call upon by notice the owner of, or any other person who, in its or his opinion may be interested in, such land to show cause in writing why the land should not be acquired with reasons therefore, to the Collector within the period specified in the notice; and the Collector shall, with all reasonable dispatch, forward any objections so submitted together with his report in respect thereof to the State Government and on considering the report and the objections, if any, the State Government may pass such order 13 as it deems fit].
3 [(1 A) The acquisition of land for any purpose mentioned in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be a public purpose.] (2) When a notice as aforesaid is published in the Official Gazette, the land shall on and from the date on which the notice is so published vest absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances.” It is apparent from a bare reading of the aforesaid provisions that Section 14 with respect to acquisition is not conditional upon Chapter IA from Section 3A to 3W of the Act which contains provisions as to Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. We find that Slum Rehabilitation scheme has a totally different object under Chapter IA. It contains procedure with respect to slum rehabilitation which is not so in case of acquisition. Thus, the provisions of Chapter 1 A are not at all attracted.
Apart from that, when we consider the provisions contained in Chapter III in sections 5 to 10A, Section 5 deals with the Power of Competent Authority regarding execution of work for improvement of buildings. Any slum area or part is capable of improvement at a reasonable 14 expense. The competent authority may execute such work so as not to be a source of danger to the health, safety or convenience of the public. The provisions of Chapter III do not deal with the acquisition at all. The provisions in the aforesaid sections in Chapter III contain no express or implied stipulation that acquisition cannot be resorted to under the provisions of Section 14 without recourse to any of the provisions contained in Chapter III. Court cannot impose any such stipulation which is against the legislative intent.
Coming to ‘clearance area’, a reading of Sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Act contained in Chapter IV makes it apparent that under section 11 there is power to declare slums area to be clearance area. Clearance involves demolition of all buildings in the area and it depends upon availability of resources with competent authority so as to comply with provisions. Section 12 deals, inter alia, with procedure/appeals against clearance order. Section 13 deals with the power of competent authority to redevelop clearance area. Clearance of area is by way of demolition and after clearance “owner” may re-develop the 15 area in accordance with plans approved by the competent authority as provided in section 12(10) of the Act. It is only for declaring clearance area, provisions of Chapter IV are attracted and not otherwise.
The provisions of section 14 are independent under which area is acquired by the State, subject to the hearing of the objection pursuant to a show cause, and a decision has to be taken thereafter. This Court in previous round of litigation has upheld the notification under section 4 of the Act declaring it to be ‘slum area’. Obviously considering its miserable condition decision was rightly taken to acquire it. There is no express provision or implied condition indicating that provisions of other sections should be followed for acquisition. An acquisition is permissible under section 14 to redevelop “clearance area”. However acquisition is permissible without declaring an area as ‘clearance area’. The manner of acquisition is prescribed under Section 14, we cannot add or subtract anything in the provision.
The pre-requisite for exercise of power under 16 Section 14 is the satisfaction of State Government that authority can execute work of improvement in “slum area” or any building in such area or redevelop “clearance area”, and it is necessary that land within, adjoining or surrounded by any such area be acquired, it can initiate proceedings under section 14(1) of the Act. The State can make acquisition subject to conditions prescribed in provisions contained under section 14 of the Act.
In view of aforesaid discussion, we are unable to subscribe to the view expressed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in the case of Maruti V. Mane & Anr. Vs. Smt. Ramkal Sitaram Kushawaha & Ors., in which it observed that provisions under Section 14 of the Act relating to acquisition could not have been resorted to without having adopted the procedure under the provisions of Section 5 of the Act. The legal position has not been correctly appreciated in the said decision. Thus, the decision is over ruled.
The learned senior counsel for appellant urged that notice under section 14 of the Act was issued when the interim stay granted by the High Court in writ 17 petition staying notification under section 4 was operating as such; there was no notification in operation under Section 4 of the Act. Thus, the notice issued under the provisions of Section 14 during the stay was a nullity. For this purpose, the learned senior counsel has relied upon the decision in Manohar Lal (Dead) by Lrs. Vs Ugrasen (Dead) by Lrs. and others.[(2010) 11 SCC 557] “24. In Surjit Singh Vs. Harbans Singh, AIR 1996 SC 135, this Court while dealing with the similar issue held as under:
"In defiance of the restraint order, the alienation/ assignment was made. If we were to let it go as such, it would defeat the ends of justice and the prevalent public policy. When the Court intends a particular state of affairs to exist while it is in seisin of a lis, that state of affairs is not only required to be maintained, but it is presumed to exist till the Court orders otherwise. The Court, in these circumstances, has the duty, as also the right, to treat the alienation/assignment as having not taken place at all for its purposes."
25. In All Bengal Excise Licensees Association Vs. Raghavendra Singh &Ors, AIR 2007 SC 1386, this court held as under:
"A party to the litigation cannot be allowed to take an unfair advantage by committing breach of an interim order and escape the consequences thereof.....the wrong perpetrated by the respondents in utter disregard of the order of the High Court should not be permitted to hold good."18
26. In Delhi Development Authority Vs. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. &Anr. AIR 1996 SC 2005, this court after making reference to many of the earlier judgments held:
"On principle that those who defy a prohibition ought not to be able to claim that the fruits of their defiance are good, and not tainted by the illegality that produced them."
27. In Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar Vs. Nagesh Siddappa Navalgund, AIR 2008 SC 901, this Court while dealing with the similar issues held that even a Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in the event of coming to the conclusion that a breach to an order of restraint had taken place, may bring back the parties to the same position as if the order of injunction has not been violated.
28. In view of the above, it is evident that any order passed by any authority in spite of the knowledge of the interim order of the court is of no consequence as it remains a nullity.
29. In Messrs. Trojan & Co. Vs. RM.N.N. Nagappa Chettiar AIR 1953 SC 235, this Court considered the issue as to whether relief not asked for by a party could be granted and that too without having proper pleadings. The Court held as under:
"It is well settled that the decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties and it is the case pleaded that has to be found. Without an amendment of the plaint, the Court was not entitled to grant the relief not asked for and no prayer was ever made to amend the plaint so as to incorporate in it an alternative case."
In our opinion, the submission on the face of it 19 is attractive but is devoid of merits on the facts of the case. When notice was issued to file objections, the interim order was in operation, the reply was filed. The writ petition had been ultimately dismissed, and except for the issuance of the notice nothing further was done and proceedings remained stayed. Thereafter notice was again issued for hearing and objections were submitted by the appellants. They were heard and thereafter, the decision was taken. Thus, when action had not been taken on the basis of notice which was issued and at the time when the final order was passed the interim stay was not operative, the writ petition and writ appeal both stood dismissed by the High Court. This Court, later on, dismissed the SLP. Thus, it could not be said that when the decision has been finally taken regarding the acquisition, it suffered from any illegality. In the facts of the case, the ratio of the decision in Manohar Lal (supra) is not at all attracted and acquisition cannot be said to be nullity.
Coming to the submission of the learned senior counsel with respect to the fact that Expropriatory 20 legislations must be strictly implemented and complied with as has been relied upon in Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial Coke and Chemical Ltd. and Ors. [(2007) 8 SCC 705 at para 58 which reads thus:
“58. Expropriatory legislation, as is well-known, must be given a strict construction.” In DevSharan and Ors V. State of U.P. and Ors. [(2011) 4 SCC 769] para 23 reads thus:
“23. In DLF Qutab Enclave complex Educational Charitable Trust v. State of Haryana, this Court construed the statute on Town Planning Law and held:
“41. Expropriatory statute, as is well known, must be strictly construed.” There is no dispute with the aforesaid proposition raised by the learned senior counsel. However, we find that provisions of Section 14 have been duly complied with in the instant case, objections were invited under section 14 and fair procedure for the determination of compensation has been duly followed. It was fully in compliance with the provisions of the Act and provisions contained under Article 300 A of the Constitution of India. Section 5A of the Land 21 Acquisition Act, 1894 is pari materia to section 14(1) of the Act, later provision had been complied with in the case. For enhancement of compensation, the appeal filed was later on withdrawn by the appellants.
Now, coming to the question of fraud being played by the proposed developers. In the instant case findings recorded with respect to the parameters required for its being declared as a slum area is reflected in Para 34 of the impugned order, the High Court has noted that the said property comprised about six chawls having about 339 occupants. The structures, the rooms, and the roofs, in particular, were decayed and in dilapidated conditions. There is a reference to about eight W.Cs. out of which almost five were rendered unusable. Two W.Cs. had no doors and three were over flooded. There were no septic tanks and the waste was drained in open nallaha, which itself was over flowing with filth and constituted the health hazard. The entire area emitted foul smell and pollution was writ large. The internal roads were narrow and not properly maintained. There were no streetlights. The height of the structures, denied its occupants 22 natural light. In short, there were no basic amenities; the conditions were insanitary, squalid, overcrowded. There was no proper ventilation, there were foul smell and pollution, the conditions constituted serious health hazards and the area was unfit for human habitation. Despite all this, the Slum Tribunal has recorded that the tenants/occupants of the structures had expressed willingness to have the said property redeveloped by the appellants themselves and had even assured cooperation for such purpose. The slum Tribunal went to the extent of itself granting the appellants opportunity to take appropriate steps to develop the property under the slum rehabilitation Schemes before any action was taken to acquire the said property by resorting to the provisions contained in section 14 of the Slum Act. The observations in paragraphs 22 and the operative portion of the order dated 12th December 1997, made by the Slum Tribunal, would bear out this position, which reads thus:
“22. However, to give chance to the Appellant landlord to take appropriate steps to develop the property one or other scheme. I therefore, hereby permit the appellant to take steps to develop the said plot No. 165, 165/1 to 51 of Village Kanjur 23 by adopting any steps towards development of the plot within 3 months from the date of order, failing which, the competent authority should take steps to initiate proceedings under sec 14(c) of the said Slum Act and permit the occupiers of the Co-op. Housing Society, i.e. Mata Vaishnodevi Co-op Housing Society, to develop the said plot in accordance with the schemes to which they are bound.
23. In the premises, I therefore, pass the following order:
“Declaration of slum of property baring C.T.S. No. 165/65 1 to 51 declared as Slum by Notification No. ENC/DCK/I/WS/168/SR-200 of 1997 dated 20.8.1997 published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette on 21.8.1997, is hereby confirmed.
Ad-interim stay granted is hereby vacated.
Appellant be permitted to adopt any of the Scheme for re-development within a period of three months from to date of order, failing which the Competent authority should adopt proceedings under Sec. 14(1) of the Maharashtra Slum Area (I.C. & R.) Act, 1971 and thereafter, handover the plot for development to Mata Vaishnodevi Co-op. Housing Society to develop the said plot in accordance with law.
However, I propose no order as to cost. Appeal dismissed.“ In spite of the opportunity, no improvement had been 24 made and the position became bad to worse with the lapse of time. Thus, authorities were left with no other choice except to acquire land under Section 14 of the Act. Once acquisition had been validly made, it is for the slum dwellers to make a choice of an agency to develop the area and they have to decide it. In the case, 98% of slum dwellers, as a matter of fact, had decided to enter into an agreement with M/s. Puja developers. Though, for such agreement, the requirement was only for 70% occupants. The slum dwellers had thus entered into an agreement with M/s. Puja developers under the provisions of Development Control Regulation No.33(10) read with its appendix 1.5, 4.15 15. Thus, it cannot be said that the respondents in any manner whatsoever had taken any mala fide action.
This Court while entertaining petition vide order dated 1.7.2016 directed the appellants to deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores only). However, no equity arises in favour of appellant by such deposit and it is not permissible to direct development to be made by appellant. After the acquisition, it is to be as per Development Control Regulations that do not permit 25 such a course. In case, the amount has been deposited and is lying in the fixed deposit, the same be refunded to appellant No. 1 along with accrued interest if any.
The appeal being bereft of merits stands dismissed. The parties to bear their own costs.
....................J (ARUN MISHRA) ....................J (MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR) NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 29, 2017
26
ITEM NO.7 COURT NO.10 SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).14732/2016 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 01-03-2016 in WP No. 165/2007 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Bombay) MURLIDHAR TECKCHAND GANDHI & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Respondent(s) ([PERMISSION TO FILE ANNEXURES] ON IA 2/2016 FOR SUBSTITUTED SERVICE ON IA 6/2017) Date : 29-08-2017 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, Adv.
Mr. Amitabh Sinha, Adv.
Mr. C. M. Gandhi, Adv.
Mr. Aman Nandrajog, Adv.
Mr. T. Mahipal, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushar R. Mehta, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Adv.
Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR Mr. S.S. Ray, Adv.
Mr. Vaibhav Gulia, Adv.
Ms. Rakhi Ray, AOR Mr. Ashok H. Desai, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Y.R. Mishra, Adv.
Dr. Sumant Bharadwaj, Adv.
Ms. Rina Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Abhitosh Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kailash Sharma, Adv. Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj, AOR 27 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal stands dismissed in terms of the signed reportable order.
(B.PARVATHI) (TAPAN KUMAR CHAKRABORTY) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER
(Signed reportable order is placed on the file)