Onkarnath Lalchandji Karva v. State Of Maharashtra And ORS

Sumedh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2386 OF 1991 WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 372 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2386 OF 1991 WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 254 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2386 OF 1991 WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 372 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2386 OF 1991 Onkarnath Lalchandji Karwa

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Maharashtra & Ors

...Respondents

Mr VY Sanglikar, for the Petitioner.

Mr PG Lad, with Sayli Apte, Shreya Shah, for the RespondentMHADA. Mr Milind More, Addl GP with Ms Uma Palsuledesai, AGP, for the Respondent-State.

Digitally signed by SUMEDH NAMDEO SONAWANE Date:

2024.07.29 18:12:19 +0530 SUMEDH NAMDEO SONAWANE

CORAM

M.S. Sonak & Kamal Khata, JJ.

DATED:

PC:- 1.

Maharashtra Housing and Area Development ("MHADA") is permitted to file its reply and a copy of which has already been served on learned counsel for the Petitioner. 2.

The learned counsel for the parties invited our attention to averments in paragraph No. 2 of this Petition which reads as follows: "2.

This Petition is filed in the interest of general members of the public and in particular the inhabitants and residents of Bombay and Maharashtra State. This Petition relates to inaction and failure on the part of the Respondents to act according to law, justice and fair play and relates also to illegal acts and unfair discrimination and favouritism and usurping of the rights of the Petitioner and other members of the public and citizens of Bombay. The Petitioner submits that if the appropriate reliefs are not forthwith granted, the above wrongful and illegal acts, procedure and practice may be continued and escalate, depriving the innocent and trusting citizens of Maharashtra and Bombay of their just and legitimate rights and fundamental justice by surreptitious manipulations and tactics."

3.

Mr Sanglikar, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that this Petition is in fact in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation. He points out that even chamber summons has been taken out to elaborate on this aspect.

4.

Considering the submissions made and the averments made in paragraph No. 2 of this Petition, the Registry to place this matter before the bench taking up Public Interest Litigation. 5.

The Registry to do the needful.

(Kamal Khata, J) (M.S. Sonak, J)