← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/1024/2016disposed off

Salim Shamim Shaikh v. The Municipal Corporation Of Greater Bombay And 4 ORS

2016-06-28Hon'Ble Shri Justice M. S. Karnik,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar2 pages

prod-904-wp-1024-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1024 OF 2016 Salim Shamim Khan

...Petitioner

vs.

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Others

...Respondents

Mr. Indu Prakash Tripathi, for the Petitioner Mrs. Geeta Joglekar, for the Respondent-BMC.

CORAM : SHANTANU KEMKAR & MAKARAND KARNIK, JJ.

DATE :

JUNE 28, 2016 P.C.:

Not on board. Upon mentioning taken on board. 2.

Leave to amend the cause title is granted. The amendment is to be carried out forthwith.

3.

The Petitioner claims that his father was holding a licence of a handcart and after the death of his father in the year 2004, the Petitioner's mother had applied for transfer of the said licence in her favour but the mother is not interested for the transfer of the said licence of the handcart in her favour. According to the Petitioner, he had also submitted the application in the year 2004 for transfer of the Vishal Parekar 1/2

prod-904-wp-1024-2016 said handcart in his favour. He submits that thereafter the Respondents vide letter dated 30th June, 2010 directed the Petitioner to submit the documents in support of his claim which the Petitioner had submitted in the year 2010 itself but till date no decision has been taken on his application by the Respondents. 4.

Having considered the submissions made by the parties, we are inclined to dispose of this Petition by directing the competent authority of Respondent-Corporation to consider and take appropriate decision in regard to the Petitioner's claim for transfer of licence of handcart which was in the name of his father. Let the appropriate decision in accordance with law be taken within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. With the aforesaid direction, the Petition stands disposed of. 5.

Needless to say that we have not expressed our opinion in respect to the merits of the Petitioner's claim. (M.S. KARNIK, J.) (S.S. KEMKAR, J.) Vishal Parekar 2/2