Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.31 seconds)Section 69 in The Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 [Entire Act]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 76B in The Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 [Entire Act]
Section 81 in The Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 [Entire Act]
Section 76B in The City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Omprakash Sawalram Agrawal vs The Nagpur Municipal Corporation on 19 July, 2010
In Omprakash Sawalram Agrawal (supra) a learned
Single of this Court, as he then was, while considering the provisions
of Section 76-B of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948, which
are similar to Section 81-B of the MMC Act to quite an extent, and
identical insofar as Section 81-B(1)(c) of the MMC Act is concerned,
has held as under :
The Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949
Olga Tellis & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors. Etc on 10 July, 1985
24. Loss of a source of earning livelihood not only for
themselves and families but also to several others indulging in
incidental or co-lateral businesses can also not be relevant
when scheme of Chapter VIA of NMC Act is taken note of. The
petitioners cannot here try to demonstrate any more right than
available to them under that Chapter. Article 21 also permits
deprivation of life and liberty in accordance with the procedure
established by law. (1985) 3 SCC 545 : AIR 1986 SC 180, Olga
Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation relied upon by the
petitioners does not consider a relationship regulated by
contract or statutory provisions. Hon'ble Apex Court has stated
while summing up the petitioners' case before it, that the main
plank of their argument was that the right to life which is
guaranteed by Article 21 includes the right to livelihood and
since, they will be deprived of their livelihood if they are
evicted from their slum and pavement dwellings, their eviction
is tantamount to deprivation of their life and is hence
unconstitutional. Thus right to reside in slums on footpath was
co-related with livelihood earned. The observations and
findings that right to life include right to earn livelihood there
are therefore not relevant in case of present petitioners as they
::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2023 16:01:01 :::
WP 54 of 2023.odt
32
do not reside there and their right is being terminated as per
law.