Bombay HC Allows Residents to Move SC for Continuation of Work at the Coastal Area During Lockdown

Must Read

Federal Court Denied Involvement of US Department of Justice in Trump’s Defamation Lawsuit

Background  The Plaintiff, E .Jean Carroll, published a book where she wrote that a businessman, Donald J Trump had raped...

SC Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and...

Lawsuit Filed Against Uber for Discriminatory “Star Rating System”

The lawsuit was bought in the District Court of North California against Uber. The plaintiff claims class-action status on...

Bombay High Court To Hear Plea Seeking Removal of Chairperson of National Commission for Women

A Writ Petition had been filed in the Bombay High Court challenging the conduct of the Chairperson of the...

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found...

Follow us

The Bombay High Court grants liberty to 20 Mumbai residents to move to the Supreme Court. These residents are members of a group ‘Save Our Coast’. They interrogated the continuation of construction work for the coastal road. The reason is that the work violates lockdown rules.

Introduction

A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice S.S. Shinde heard the PIL. The PIL was filed by Priya Mahanataney and 19 other members. Here, Larsen & Toubro is the intervenor and project contractor. It informed the Court that the Supreme Court seized the issue as a challenge to the continuation of work.

Counsels in the Present Matter

A number of counsels appeared in the matter. For Larsen & Toubro, Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and SU Kamdar appeared. For MCGM, Senior Advocates DJ Khambata and AY Sakhare appeared. Further, Advocate General AA Kumbhakoni appeared for the State. Moreover, Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh appeared for the Union of India. Whereas, Senior Counsel Janak Dwarkadas appears on behalf of the petitioners.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The Court asked Senior Advocate Dwarkadas about whether petitioners would be willing to raise all the issues. These issues have been mentioned in the PIL before the Supreme Court. Also, the Supreme Court already seized the matter. Otherwise, they would like to put in security as a condition precedent in terms. Further, the terms include Rule 7A of the Bombay High Court PIL Rules, 2010 for the hearing of their claims on merits. After taking instructions, Dwarkadas submitted that petitioners may be granted liberty. This liberty allowed them to move to the Supreme Court with all the issues raised in the present PIL.

Court’s decision

Thus, the Court did not entertain the PIL. As a result, it stands dismissed. However, this order does not prevent the petitioners to seek a remedy before the court. Needless to say, the Court did not opine on the merits of the claims.

Previously, the High Court allowed the petitions filed by various citizen groups. It included project-affected fishermen. Moreover, the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) clearance to the road project is set aside. Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority and EAC under the Ministry of Environment and Forest grant it.

Subsequently, the group filed an appeal before the Supreme Court against the said order. As a result, the order dated December 17, 2019, against the impugned judgment stayed. Finally, the petitioners get the liberty to “reclaim the land, build the road thereon and secure the road“.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

Latest News

Federal Court Denied Involvement of US Department of Justice in Trump’s Defamation Lawsuit

Background  The Plaintiff, E .Jean Carroll, published a book where she wrote that a businessman, Donald J Trump had raped her in a dressing room,...

SC Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna. They heard...

Lawsuit Filed Against Uber for Discriminatory “Star Rating System”

The lawsuit was bought in the District Court of North California against Uber. The plaintiff claims class-action status on behalf of all the minority...

Bombay High Court To Hear Plea Seeking Removal of Chairperson of National Commission for Women

A Writ Petition had been filed in the Bombay High Court challenging the conduct of the Chairperson of the National Commission for Women. The...

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed an Order on 25th October...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found that Germany had violated the...

Lack of Independent Witness Doesn’t Vitiate Conviction: Supreme Court

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Dhiman v State of Himachal Pradesh clarified the law in case of lack of independent...

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Supreme Court Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna. They heard...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -