A summary of important cases from the causelist of the Bombay High Court..LIST OF CASES.Bombay High Court.Loksatta Movement & Anr v. State of Maharashtra & 8 Ors.Smt. Sunita Prashant Patil v. Smt. Vidya Bal and Anr.Ali Akbar Adamjee Peerbhoy v. Honble Chief Minister, Govt of MaharashtraAli Ahmed Siddique v. State of MaharashtraMunicipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. National Green Tribunal western zoneDr. SF Singhai v. State of Maharashtra.SUMMARY OF CASES.1. Loksatta Movement & Anr v. State of Maharashtra & 8 Ors..[Item 906 Court 43- NMWST(OS)/307/2016].Bench: VM Kanade and MS Karnik JJ.A notice of motion in the original PIL which contends that the IPL matches in the state will result in a wastage of approximately 60 lakh litres of water. The petitioners seek relocation of these matches outside the state due to a severe shortage of water..For more details read our previous report along with the order passed..Today in court: The court allowed one more match to be held within the state. Read our detailed report..2. Smt. Sunita Prashant Patil v. Smt. Vidya Bal and Anr..[Item 907 Court 52- CAI(civil)/63/2016].Bench: CJ DH Waghela and MS Sonak JJ.The intervenors in the Shani Shingnapur matter, contend that the temple authority’ s decision to allow entry of women into Shani Shignapur(sanctum sanctorum) is flawed as it goes aginst tradition..Previously Subhash Jha, appearing for the petitioners was directed to file a compilation of judgements which basically state that an intervention can be allowed from an outside person in a petition where an order has already been passed. CJ Waghela repeatedly questioned Jha about his client’s locus standi..Today in court: As directed earlier, Subhash Jha filed a compilation of judgements today..On the issue maintainability of this application, the division bench has reserved it’s order. One of the intervenors is also a shopkeeper whose shop is inside the temple premises. The intervenors are primarily of the view that the earlier order obtained from this court was obtained fraudulently as the petitioners misled the court..3. Ali Akbar Adamjee Peerbhoy v. Honble Chief Minister, Govt of Maharashtra.[Item 4 Court 43- W.P.(C)/2539/2013].Bench: VM Kanade and MS Karnik JJ..Today in court: Petition seeking renaming of the Matheran station after Sir Adamjee Peerbhoy, the man who set up the rail link between Neral and Matheran hill in 1907. The petition has been filed by his great grandson. This matter could not be taken up due to p[aucity of time..4. Ali Ahmed Siddique v. State of Maharashtra.[Item 10 Court 13- PIL(OS)/57/2014].Bench: AS Oka, PD Naik JJ..This PIL seeks action against escort services all over the city, who advertise through the internet by putting up phone numbers and other information. Petitioner’s counsel, Devasis Mitra has previously submitted that such services are dangerous for the society as a whole and state must act pro-actively. The state government had been asked to file a reply..Today in court: Government Pleader, Poornima Kantharia submitted an affidavit filed by Sanjay Salunkhe, Inspector (Social Service Branch)..The affidavit records that a total of 174 websites have been forwarded to group co-ordinating officer, cyber cell, department of IT & communications. These websites are registered on host website godaddy.com, a letter has been sent to its chief technical officer by the police informing him about these illegal websites. They are being used for prostitution, the affidavit records..Although no action has been taken by the said department at this point, state has promised to follow up in the matter and report compliance accordingly..The matter was adjourned to June 22..5. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. National Green Tribunal western zone.[Item 905 Court 52- WP(OS)/1720/2014].Bench: CJ DH Waghela, MS Sonak J.Petition regarding the dumping at Kanjurmarg site and the boundary wall that covers the site. For more details read the previous order and also our previous report..Today in court: The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation has been directed to give a timeline with regard to demolition of the compound wall at the Kanjurmarg dumping site.This direction has come in light of BMC’s ignorance towards its blatant violation of a previous order in 2013 which directed demolition of the compound wall as part of it has destroyed wetlands and mangroves nearby which is a violation of CRZ rules..Although the Municipal Solid Waste Rules, 2000 mandate the construction of such a wall around a bio-reactor plant, the mangroves in the area change the dynamics of this problem..Appearing for the BMC, senior counsel SU Kamdar stated that the compound wall is necessary for protection of the bio-reactor plant installed in the premises of the 141 hectare Kanjurmarg site. BMC had sought post-facto clearence from MCZMA for the regularisation of this wall..CJ Waghela stressed on the illegality of the wall and the BMC’s defiance of a high court order, cutting the BMC counsel’s submissions midway he enquired from Sharmila Deshmukh, counsel for MCZMA:.“Do you have the mandate to process an application which will essentially override an order of this court?”.Deshmukh replied with a vehement No..Further recording his displeasure the Chief Justice said-“We are afraid today that court orders are grossly violated in such matters.We will spare nobody. If you don’t tell us when you will demolish this wall then we will vacate all earlier court orders and give appropriate directions.” The civic body will now file a reply on April 25..6. Dr. SF Singhai v. State of Maharashtra .[Item 941 Court 52- WP(OS)/2943/1999].Bench: CJ DH Waghela and MS Sonak JJ..Check evening updates..Today in court: This matter could not be taken up due to paucity of time.
A summary of important cases from the causelist of the Bombay High Court..LIST OF CASES.Bombay High Court.Loksatta Movement & Anr v. State of Maharashtra & 8 Ors.Smt. Sunita Prashant Patil v. Smt. Vidya Bal and Anr.Ali Akbar Adamjee Peerbhoy v. Honble Chief Minister, Govt of MaharashtraAli Ahmed Siddique v. State of MaharashtraMunicipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. National Green Tribunal western zoneDr. SF Singhai v. State of Maharashtra.SUMMARY OF CASES.1. Loksatta Movement & Anr v. State of Maharashtra & 8 Ors..[Item 906 Court 43- NMWST(OS)/307/2016].Bench: VM Kanade and MS Karnik JJ.A notice of motion in the original PIL which contends that the IPL matches in the state will result in a wastage of approximately 60 lakh litres of water. The petitioners seek relocation of these matches outside the state due to a severe shortage of water..For more details read our previous report along with the order passed..Today in court: The court allowed one more match to be held within the state. Read our detailed report..2. Smt. Sunita Prashant Patil v. Smt. Vidya Bal and Anr..[Item 907 Court 52- CAI(civil)/63/2016].Bench: CJ DH Waghela and MS Sonak JJ.The intervenors in the Shani Shingnapur matter, contend that the temple authority’ s decision to allow entry of women into Shani Shignapur(sanctum sanctorum) is flawed as it goes aginst tradition..Previously Subhash Jha, appearing for the petitioners was directed to file a compilation of judgements which basically state that an intervention can be allowed from an outside person in a petition where an order has already been passed. CJ Waghela repeatedly questioned Jha about his client’s locus standi..Today in court: As directed earlier, Subhash Jha filed a compilation of judgements today..On the issue maintainability of this application, the division bench has reserved it’s order. One of the intervenors is also a shopkeeper whose shop is inside the temple premises. The intervenors are primarily of the view that the earlier order obtained from this court was obtained fraudulently as the petitioners misled the court..3. Ali Akbar Adamjee Peerbhoy v. Honble Chief Minister, Govt of Maharashtra.[Item 4 Court 43- W.P.(C)/2539/2013].Bench: VM Kanade and MS Karnik JJ..Today in court: Petition seeking renaming of the Matheran station after Sir Adamjee Peerbhoy, the man who set up the rail link between Neral and Matheran hill in 1907. The petition has been filed by his great grandson. This matter could not be taken up due to p[aucity of time..4. Ali Ahmed Siddique v. State of Maharashtra.[Item 10 Court 13- PIL(OS)/57/2014].Bench: AS Oka, PD Naik JJ..This PIL seeks action against escort services all over the city, who advertise through the internet by putting up phone numbers and other information. Petitioner’s counsel, Devasis Mitra has previously submitted that such services are dangerous for the society as a whole and state must act pro-actively. The state government had been asked to file a reply..Today in court: Government Pleader, Poornima Kantharia submitted an affidavit filed by Sanjay Salunkhe, Inspector (Social Service Branch)..The affidavit records that a total of 174 websites have been forwarded to group co-ordinating officer, cyber cell, department of IT & communications. These websites are registered on host website godaddy.com, a letter has been sent to its chief technical officer by the police informing him about these illegal websites. They are being used for prostitution, the affidavit records..Although no action has been taken by the said department at this point, state has promised to follow up in the matter and report compliance accordingly..The matter was adjourned to June 22..5. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. National Green Tribunal western zone.[Item 905 Court 52- WP(OS)/1720/2014].Bench: CJ DH Waghela, MS Sonak J.Petition regarding the dumping at Kanjurmarg site and the boundary wall that covers the site. For more details read the previous order and also our previous report..Today in court: The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation has been directed to give a timeline with regard to demolition of the compound wall at the Kanjurmarg dumping site.This direction has come in light of BMC’s ignorance towards its blatant violation of a previous order in 2013 which directed demolition of the compound wall as part of it has destroyed wetlands and mangroves nearby which is a violation of CRZ rules..Although the Municipal Solid Waste Rules, 2000 mandate the construction of such a wall around a bio-reactor plant, the mangroves in the area change the dynamics of this problem..Appearing for the BMC, senior counsel SU Kamdar stated that the compound wall is necessary for protection of the bio-reactor plant installed in the premises of the 141 hectare Kanjurmarg site. BMC had sought post-facto clearence from MCZMA for the regularisation of this wall..CJ Waghela stressed on the illegality of the wall and the BMC’s defiance of a high court order, cutting the BMC counsel’s submissions midway he enquired from Sharmila Deshmukh, counsel for MCZMA:.“Do you have the mandate to process an application which will essentially override an order of this court?”.Deshmukh replied with a vehement No..Further recording his displeasure the Chief Justice said-“We are afraid today that court orders are grossly violated in such matters.We will spare nobody. If you don’t tell us when you will demolish this wall then we will vacate all earlier court orders and give appropriate directions.” The civic body will now file a reply on April 25..6. Dr. SF Singhai v. State of Maharashtra .[Item 941 Court 52- WP(OS)/2943/1999].Bench: CJ DH Waghela and MS Sonak JJ..Check evening updates..Today in court: This matter could not be taken up due to paucity of time.
