Aakhil Bharatiya Dhobi Samaj Sangh v. The State Of Maharashtra And 4 ORS
DDR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 43 OF 2018 Aakhil Bharatiya Dhobi Samaj Sangh .. Petitioner Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & ors.
.. Respondents ............
Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Senior Advocate I/b. Sujeet G. Kurup and Shivaji P. Yadav for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajiv Mane, AGP a/w. Ms. Deepali Patankar, AGP for State - respondent No.1.
Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. H.C. Pimple for MCGM - respondent No.2.
Mr. Vijay D. Patil for respondent No.3.
Mr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate a/w. Ms. Asha Nair, Surendra Vishwakarma, Siddhartham Nair & Ms. Prajakta Samel I/b. Diamondwala & Co. for respondent No.4.
Mr. P.K. Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate I/b. Jayesh R. Vyas for respondent No.5.
............
CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL, CJ. & M.S. KARNIK, J.
DATE : 12th DECEMBER, 2018 P.C. :
The petitioner prays for various direction to contesting respondents in this Public Interest Litigation ('PIL' for short). Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Dhobi Ghat area which is heritage site is 1/4
comprising 2 lakhs sq. mtrs. out of which the authorities have decided to implement Slum Rehabilitation Scheme in respect of area comprising 38,000 sq. mtrs. which according to the learned Senior Counsel is not part of the heritage site. The members of the petitioner - Sangh have prayed that the authorities to take necessary steps in accordance with the observations made in the order dated 5th October, 2018 passed in Writ Petition No. 1654 of 2018 and the statements recorded therein. Learned Senior Counsel has additional prayer to make. It is submitted that some time-line is required to be fixed for the Developer / Authorities concerned to provide temporary alternate accommodation. 2.
Mr. Sathe, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.4 and Mr. Dhakephalkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 initially raised objection to the petitioner's locus. It is submitted that in past couple of years Petitions were filed by the individuals, organizations, representing interest of the persons engaged in Dhobi Ghat area. The issue has already suffered adjudication in a batch of 2/4
Petitions filed and decided by an order dated 5th October, 2018 by Division Bench (Coram : B.R. Gavai and M.S. Karnik, JJ.). 3.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5 submit that except 28 persons, near about all such persons occupying subject area have vacated the premises. The respondents would take necessary steps in accordance with the observations made and the statements recorded in the earlier order passed by Division Bench of this Court. 4.
We have perused the said order and considered the submissions advanced. In paragraph 22 of the said order dated 5th October, 2018 it is observed as under :- " 22.
It would be pertinent to note that out of 1530 slum dwellers, already 1502 have been shifted and are being provided with rent in lieu of temporary alternate accommodation. Insofar as the licenced rassi holders are concerned, they are being provided with temporary location to carry on their activities of drying clothes. They are already shifted from the site for implementation of the scheme. It is also pertinent to note that the Dhobi Audhyogik Vikas Co-op Society Ltd. which filed Writ Petition No. 2691 of 2015, had categorically made a statement that they are not objecting to 3/4
the implementation of the slum scheme. A meeting was called on 25/05/2016 by CEO of SRA which was duly attended by various authorities to consider the pros & cons and beneficial usage of Dhobighat, reservation for drying area etc. The meeting was duly attended by representatives of the Societies of which rassi holders are members." In view of the said order, the present PIL also stands disposed of. An eligible affected person, organizations or Sangh representing eligible members, may as and when cause of action arises, resort to remedies available in law. We do not express any opinion on merits.
5.
The Petition is accordingly disposed of.
(M.S. KARNIK, J.) ( CHIEF JUSTICE) 4/4