Ankush Deorao Fatangade v. The State Of Mah And ANR

1 WP 710 of 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition No. 710 of 2008 * Ankush s/o Deorao Fatangade, Age 65 years, Occupation : Business, R/o Ramnagar, N-2, CIDCO, Aurangabad, Taluka & District Aurangabad. .. Petitioner.

Versus

1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Urban Housing Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

2) The Administrator, City & Industrial Development Corporation, Aurangabad. .. Respondents. ---- Shri. M.R. Andhale, Advocate, for petitioner. Shri. Y.G. Gujarathi, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent No.1.

Shri. A.S. Bajaj, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ---- Coram: R.D. DHANUKA & SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.

Date : 23 AUGUST 2017

2 WP 710 of 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.D. Dhanuka, J.):

1) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks a declaration that the detention of two Taparis of the petitioner by respondent No.2 is illegal and unconstitutional and seeks further direction against respondent Nos.1 and 2 to pay compensation of Rs. one lakh for wrongful detention of the Tapari shop and income loss per day caused to the business of the petitioner.

2) Learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai & Others, 2013(6) ALL MR 480 (S.C.) and would submit that the State Government as well as respondent No.2 shall frame a policy to protect the rights of hawkers and shall permit the small hawkers like the petitioner to carry on business on the streets.

3) Mr. Bajaj learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand submits that in the year 2005 a drive

3 WP 710 of 2008 for removal of encroachment was undertaken. On 18 February 2005 while undertaking such drive a Pan Tapari of the petitioner on four-wheeler cart was found touching the wall of Bank of Maharashtra and thus the petitioner was asked to remove the said pan Tapari. The petitioner instead of removing the said Tapari made an attempt to make assault on the then Administrator of the respondent No.2. Said Pan Tapari was thus seized. Respondent No.2 has denied that the said Pan Tapari was seized with material as alleged and claimed by the petitioner. It is the case of the respondent No.2 that since the petitioner was encroacher in violation of the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act and had taken law into is hand, the respondent No.2 in exercise of statutory obligation had seized the said Tapari.

4) In so far as the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union & Anr. (supra) relied upon by the petitioner is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel that various directions were given by the Supreme Court to implement the policy of 2009 framed by the State Government.

4 WP 710 of 2008 the said judgment would not assist the case of the petitioner since the petitioner has filed this petition in 2008 alleging the seizure of Pan Tapari in the year 2005. There is no rejoinder filed by the petitioner to the said affidavit-in-reply.

5) The petitioner has not prayed for framing of similar policy or for implementation of policy, if any, framed by the State Government. The petitioner has stopped his busisness after seizure of the pan Tapari by the respondent No.2.

6) In our view no case is thus made out by the petitioner for any relief as prayed by the petitioner in this writ petition. The petition is devoid of merit and is therefore dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to cost.

Sd/- Sd/- (SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.) (R.D. DHANUKA, J.) rsl