A summary of important cases from the causelist of the Bombay High Court..LIST OF CASES.Bombay High Court.Juhu Beach Lifeguard Association v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & 2 Ors.Madhav Sakharam Rane & 2 Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & 7 Ors.Shri KK Ghuge v. State of MaharashtraJanhit Manch v. State of Maharashtra & Anr..SUMMARY OF CASES.1. Juhu Beach Lifeguard Association v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & 2 Ors..[Item 902 Court 13- WPST(OS)/1159/2016].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.The petitioners had a lifeguard workstation at Juhu Beach, the permit for which was pending with the BMC since 2010. The petition was filed after this workstation was demolished by the civic body based on an “oral complaint” by the Airports Authority of India..Previously, Oka J. pulled up the civic body for not following the procedure laid down before demolishing the structure. He had asked the Assistant Municipal Commissioner (Andheri West) to build the structure at his own cost and submit an affidavit recording the same..Today in court: The bench ordered the petitioners to implead AAI as a party, serve private notice to AAI as well as Airport Director, Juhu Airport along with the authenticated copy of this order..The bench recorded that it was open for the petitioners to reconstruct the demolished structure after 3 days from service of notice to AAI. This direction came in light of BMC’s submission that the structure was on AAI’s land and hence was illegal..The municipal commissioner has been directed to conduct an enquiry in the matter and conclude it within a month. The commissioner has also been asked to consider the case of petitioners to compensate them for the damages caused..2. Madhav Sakharam Rane & 2 Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & 7 Ors..[Item 904 Court 13- PIL(OS)/74/2007].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.A PIL seeking implementation of noise pollution rules in the city. A total of 1843 noise decibel meters were to be procured to be used across the state. Previously, AGP AB Vagyani had informed the court that 50 per cent procurement of these equipments has been done..A contempt notice issued against Additional Chief Secretary KP Bakshi for willful breach of the January 4 order that directed the state to procure these meters, has also been kept pending. Oka J had said that these meters must be procured before the festivals begin..Today in court: There are several PIL’s tagged along with this matter. A patient hearing was given to all parties concerned. One of the new issues raised today was by Senior counsel Darius Khambata who is appearing for one of the petitioners..“Noise Mapping of the entire city needs to be conducted where the levels of noise in different areas of Mumbai can be ascertained. This sort of a plan will not much funds, what is the hold up?.Noise barriers must be laid down as a requirement for obtaining IOD’s for construction activity. It is a general practice all over the world. Builders won’t go bankrupt for using muffled equipments. Such conditions must be included in the IOD certificate requirements.”.Hearing will continue tomorrow in the post-lunch session..3. Shri KK Ghuge v. State of Maharashtra.[Item 8 Court 13- PIL(C)/137/2013].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.A PIL by the Nashik Bar association seeking allotment of a minimum of five acres of land for the district court premises in Nashik. The court complex comprises ten court rooms that are very congested, and lack basic facilities for litigants and lawyers..Today in court: Acting AG Rohit Deo appeared, he submitted that him along with the Law Secretary, PWD Department have worked out a proposal to give additional allotment around the present premises so that relocation is not required. He said the adjoining land that currently belongs to the home department can be allotted..Oka J said that the Bar association should welcome the move and ensure that the AG’s efforts do not get wasted. The proposal is yet to be made available but the members of the Nashik Bar who were present in court today, were given a detailed presentation and “seemed happy” the AG said..The Bar association has been given a week’s time to give it’s view on the proposal..4. Janhit Manch v. State of Maharashtra & Anr..[Item 27 Court 13- PIL(OS)/46/2014].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.The petitioners challenge Sec 140a of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. This proviso deals with the property tax levied by the civic body..Today in court: This matter was wrongly on board.
A summary of important cases from the causelist of the Bombay High Court..LIST OF CASES.Bombay High Court.Juhu Beach Lifeguard Association v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & 2 Ors.Madhav Sakharam Rane & 2 Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & 7 Ors.Shri KK Ghuge v. State of MaharashtraJanhit Manch v. State of Maharashtra & Anr..SUMMARY OF CASES.1. Juhu Beach Lifeguard Association v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & 2 Ors..[Item 902 Court 13- WPST(OS)/1159/2016].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.The petitioners had a lifeguard workstation at Juhu Beach, the permit for which was pending with the BMC since 2010. The petition was filed after this workstation was demolished by the civic body based on an “oral complaint” by the Airports Authority of India..Previously, Oka J. pulled up the civic body for not following the procedure laid down before demolishing the structure. He had asked the Assistant Municipal Commissioner (Andheri West) to build the structure at his own cost and submit an affidavit recording the same..Today in court: The bench ordered the petitioners to implead AAI as a party, serve private notice to AAI as well as Airport Director, Juhu Airport along with the authenticated copy of this order..The bench recorded that it was open for the petitioners to reconstruct the demolished structure after 3 days from service of notice to AAI. This direction came in light of BMC’s submission that the structure was on AAI’s land and hence was illegal..The municipal commissioner has been directed to conduct an enquiry in the matter and conclude it within a month. The commissioner has also been asked to consider the case of petitioners to compensate them for the damages caused..2. Madhav Sakharam Rane & 2 Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & 7 Ors..[Item 904 Court 13- PIL(OS)/74/2007].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.A PIL seeking implementation of noise pollution rules in the city. A total of 1843 noise decibel meters were to be procured to be used across the state. Previously, AGP AB Vagyani had informed the court that 50 per cent procurement of these equipments has been done..A contempt notice issued against Additional Chief Secretary KP Bakshi for willful breach of the January 4 order that directed the state to procure these meters, has also been kept pending. Oka J had said that these meters must be procured before the festivals begin..Today in court: There are several PIL’s tagged along with this matter. A patient hearing was given to all parties concerned. One of the new issues raised today was by Senior counsel Darius Khambata who is appearing for one of the petitioners..“Noise Mapping of the entire city needs to be conducted where the levels of noise in different areas of Mumbai can be ascertained. This sort of a plan will not much funds, what is the hold up?.Noise barriers must be laid down as a requirement for obtaining IOD’s for construction activity. It is a general practice all over the world. Builders won’t go bankrupt for using muffled equipments. Such conditions must be included in the IOD certificate requirements.”.Hearing will continue tomorrow in the post-lunch session..3. Shri KK Ghuge v. State of Maharashtra.[Item 8 Court 13- PIL(C)/137/2013].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.A PIL by the Nashik Bar association seeking allotment of a minimum of five acres of land for the district court premises in Nashik. The court complex comprises ten court rooms that are very congested, and lack basic facilities for litigants and lawyers..Today in court: Acting AG Rohit Deo appeared, he submitted that him along with the Law Secretary, PWD Department have worked out a proposal to give additional allotment around the present premises so that relocation is not required. He said the adjoining land that currently belongs to the home department can be allotted..Oka J said that the Bar association should welcome the move and ensure that the AG’s efforts do not get wasted. The proposal is yet to be made available but the members of the Nashik Bar who were present in court today, were given a detailed presentation and “seemed happy” the AG said..The Bar association has been given a week’s time to give it’s view on the proposal..4. Janhit Manch v. State of Maharashtra & Anr..[Item 27 Court 13- PIL(OS)/46/2014].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.The petitioners challenge Sec 140a of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. This proviso deals with the property tax levied by the civic body..Today in court: This matter was wrongly on board.