Bombay High Court
Federation Of Churchgate Residents And ... vs The Municipal Corp. Of Gr. Mumbai And 2 ... on 12 September, 2018
Bench: B. R. Gavai, M. S. Karnik
(6)-PIL-36-18.doc
BDPSPS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Bharat
Digitally
signed by
Bharat
Dasharath
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Dasharath Pandit
Pandit Date:
2018.09.14
17:26:54
+0530
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.36 OF 2018
Federation of Churchagate Residents and others ..Petitioners
Versus
The Municipal Corporation of
Greater Mumbai and others ..Respondents
Mr. Aspi Chinoy, Senior counsel a/w Mr. Kirit Hakani, Mr. Rahul
Hakani and Ms. Niyati Hakani, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. A. Y. Sakhare, Senior counsel a/w Mr. Joel Carlos & Ms. Trupti
Puranik, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 - MCGM.
Mr. A. L. Patki, AGP for the Respondent No.3 - State.
CORAM: B. R. GAVAI &
M. S. KARNIK, JJ.
DATE: 12th SEPTEMBER, 2018 P.C.:-
1] Mr. Sakhare, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation, states that Judgment of Division Bench of this Court dated 14/03/2014 in PIL No.54 of 2012 is a subject matter of SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is hearing the matter.
2] In that view of the matter, the matter is adjourned sine die. Parties would be at liberty to move the Court after the Hon'ble 1/2 (6)-PIL-36-18.doc Supreme Court decides the SLP.
3] Though Shri Chinoy, learned Senior Counsel, has pressed for ad-interim order on the ground that guidelines which are subject matter of the present Petition are totally contrary to the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we do not find that it is necessary to pass any ad-interim orders in view of the specific statement made by Respondent-Corporation in its affidavit dated 07/09/2018. The statement made in the affidavit is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"I say that as the guidelines are before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the above referred SLP (C) No.9886 of 2014, the MCGM is not acting on the said guidelines and no permissions are being given for redevelopment based on the said guidelines."
The said statement made to this Court is treated to be an undertaking to this Court and accepted.
(M. S. KARNIK, J.) (B. R. GAVAI, J.)
2/2