Skip to main content

Notice of motion Format

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

NOTICE OF MOTION NO._______ OF 2019

IN
PIL NO (ST) 44 OF 2019


JYOTI CHAUDHARY … Applicant/ Intervener

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

Shweta Wagh & Ors … Petitioner

  Versus

Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay  and Ors. … Respondents



INDEX


Sr.
No.
Description of Documents
Page No.

1
Proforma.

2
Notice of Motion.

3
Affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion.



Advocate for the Applicant/Intervener

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

NOTICE OF MOTION NO._______ OF 2019

IN
PIL NO(ST) 36 OF 2019


JYOTI CHAUDHARY … Applicant/Intervener

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

Shweta Wagh & Ors … Petitioner

  Versus

Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay  and Ors. … Respondents


P R O F O R M A

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes. Office Memoranda of ] Court or Judge’s
Coram appearance. Court’s order or ] orders
Direction and Prothonotary’s order ]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
















------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes. Office Memoranda of ] Court or Judge’s
Coram appearance. Court’s order or ] orders
Direction and Prothonotary’s order ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------






---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes. Office Memoranda of ] Court or Judge’s
Coram appearance. Court’s order or ] orders
Direction and Prothonotary’s order ]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------




























IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

NOTICE OF MOTION NO._______ OF 2019

IN
PIL NO (ST) 44 OF 2019


JYOTI CHAUDHARY ….Applicant/Interveners
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

1. Shweta Wagh
Age 41, Occ Architech,
R/at 361 A, Laxmi Sadan, V P road
Mumbai – 400 004

2. Collective for spatial atlernatives
201, C- Wing, Baba Sadan, Co-op Society
Ratan Nagar, Four Bunglows, Andheri (W)

3. Girija Gupte
A/4, Navasamaj Nehru Road, Vile parle, Mumbai – 57

4. Pushpa Suresh Mangela
320, Juhu Mora Gaon, Mangela Wadi, JR Mahatre road
Ruia Park, Juhu, Mumbai – 400 049

5. Rajashree Prakash Bhanji
Pitruchaya Building, Dongri Galli, Nr. Vetal Mandir
Versova koliwada, Andheri (W) , Mumbai – 61

6. Jalbiradri
Through Janak Daftary
402, Arunodaya, Azad Nagar II, off Veera desai road, Andheri(W)

7. Surekha Harichandr Jawli
Jawli House, Patil Gally – 2 , Versova, Andheri (W)

8. Dr. Aruna Pendse
196, Brahman Sabha, Bulding No.2, Raja Rammohan roy road
Girgaon, Mumbai – 400 004 … Petitioner

  Versus

1. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay 
Through its Commissioner
Having office at head office, Mahapalika Marg
Opp. CST Station, Mumbai – 400 001

2. Maharashtra Costal Zone Management Authority
Through its Chairman, Environment Deparment, 2nd Floor
Room N0. 217, Annexe Building, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32

3. State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary, Environment Department,
New Administrative Bhawan, Opp. Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32

4. State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary, Urban Development Dept.
4th Floor, Main Building, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 0032

5. State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary, Dept. of Fisheries,
Gr. Floor, Sir S R Marg, J.N Heredia rd
Ballard Estate, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001

6. State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary Revenue and Forest Department
MAntralaya, Mumbai – 400 0032

7. Collector of Mumbai
Mumbai House Collectorate, Old Customs House,
Fort, Mumbai – 400 001

8. Union of India
Through its secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest
And Climate Change, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan,
Jor Bagh, New Delhi – 110 003
New 
and Ors. … Respondents

AND

1. Sunil Shantiswarup Gupta,
President, Save Coastal Road Campaign,
residing at Flat No.1, 3rd Floor, Mitrakung, 16,
            Pedder Road, Mumbai- 400026

2. Shylaja Vijayan,
  Vice President,Our Voice,
Having Office at
Office No. 7, Sagar Tower,
Sai Baba Nagar, Mira Road (E)
Thane
3.  Prakash Padikkal,
  President,
  Borivli Commuters’ Association,
residing at _______________


4 Jyoti Chaudhary
Joint Secretary,
Save Coastal Road Campaign,
B-001, Shalibhadra Yash,
Near Yaswant Gaurav Auto Stand
Nallasopara West, District Palghar … Applicant Interveners



PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that this Hon'ble Court will be moved before Their Lordships, the Hon’ble the Chief Justice ______________ and Hon’ble Shri Justice ______________ on _________ the ____ day of July, 2019 at 11.00 a.m. or soon thereafter when Counsel can be heard by Counsel on behalf of the Applicants herein for the following reliefs:-

(a) that this Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to permit the Applicants/Petitioners to intervene in PIL (Lodging) Nos.36 and 44 of 2019; so too for recall of the order dated 1st July, 2019 by which the said PILs are reserved for pronouncement of orders and further afford the Applicants Interveners an opportunity to be heard is in the interests of justice;

(b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass any other order as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.

Dated this the __ day of July, 2019.

THIS NOTICE OF MOTION is taken out  ]
by Shri Amritpal Singh Khalsa, ]
having their office at ]
304, Hari Chambers, 3rd Floor,  ]
58/64, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road,  ]
Opp. Cheetah Gate, Fort,  ]
Mumbai – 400 023. ]
 

Advocates for the Applicants / Respondent Interveners/


To

1. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay 
Through its Commissioner
Having office at head office, Mahapalika Marg
Opp. CST Station, Mumbai – 400 001

2. Maharashtra Costal Zone Management Authority
Through its Chairman, Environment Deparment, 2nd Floor
Room N0. 217, Annexe Building, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32

3. State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary, Environment Department,
New Administrative Bhawan, Opp. Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32

4. State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary, Urban Development Dept.
4th Floor, Main Building, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 0032

5. State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary, Dept. of Fisheries,
Gr. Floor, Sir S R Marg, J.N Heredia rd
Ballard Estate, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001

6. State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary Revenue and Forest Department
MAntralaya, Mumbai – 400 0032

7. Collector of Mumbai
Mumbai House Collectorate, Old Customs House,
Fort, Mumbai – 400 001

8. Union of India
Through its secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest
And Climate Change, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan,
Jor Bagh, New Delhi – 110 003
New 
and Ors.

  the Respondents abovenamed.



















N.B. Affidavit of Jyoti Chaudhary, Intervener/Applicant herein, solemnly affirmed on the __ day of July, 2019, will be used in support of this Notice of Motion.


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

NOTICE OF MOTION NO._______ OF 2019

IN
PIL NO (ST) 44 OF 2019


JYOTI CHAUDHARY … Applicant/ Intervener

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

Shweta Wagh & Ors … Petitioner

  Versus

Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay  and Ors. … Respondents


AFFIDAVIT
I,  Jyoti Chaudhary, aged about 42 years, Residing at B-001, Shalibhadra Yash, Near Yaswant Gaurav Auto Stand, Nallasopara (West), District Palghar, for self and on behalf of Intervener/Applicant Nos. 2 and 3,   do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:-

1. That I am Petitioner No.4 in the Writ Petition (L) No. 1974 of 2019 filed under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India. I am fully acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case and, hence, competent to swear this affidavit.

2. I along with Intervener/Applicant Nos 1, .2 and 3 instituted the Writ Petition (L) No 1974 of 2019 seeking, inter alia, the following reliefs:-
a) declare that the challenge to the coastal road project raised in PIL (Lodging) Nos.36 and 44 of 2019 and Others is not maintainable, for, the said project is a matter of policy which is in the exclusive domain of the executive Government and the statutory authorities like the Mumbai Municipal Corporation and that even if the said project results in violation of the fundamental rights of fisherfolks, which it does not in reality, then also it is constitutional, for, the first principle of jurisprudence is salus populi suprema lex esto – the welfare of the people is to be the highest law – and that the fundamental rights are amenable to reasonable restrictions and are not absolute;

b) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Union of India, the Government of Maharashtra, the Mumbai Municipal Corporation and other statutory authorities to plant three times mangroves as already provided in the project, prevent discharge of untreated toxic waste water into the streams and creeks, provide for water treatment plants across the shore to prevent discharge of untreated toxic waste water, provide for planting of tropical trees and benevolent and fruit-bearing trees like mango trees, almond and the like all along the coastal roads in addition to the statutory requirement of planting 3 times of the mangroves destroyed in the implementation of the project;

c) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Union of India, the Government of Maharashtra, the Mumbai Municipal Corporation and other statutory authorities to pay to the fisher folks who are likely to be adversely affected substantial and meaningful compensation, even if thousands of families were to be compensated, at the rate of Rs.10,000 per family per month; 
d) permit the Petitioner to cure the deficiency, if any, in the instant Writ Petition either by withdrawing this petition with liberty to file a fresh one or by amending the same;
e) pass such other order or orders, as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. Shri Mathews J. Nedumpara, counsel for the Petitioners, tendered the Writ Petition in the open Court on 28/06/2019 pointing out that the coastal road project is the dire need of the people who reside at far off suburbs and the said project is the reflection of the acceptance of their long cherished need by the executive Government; that PIL (Lodging) Nos.36 and 44 of 2019 in challenge of the coastal road project are not maintainable because the said project does not involve any lis which this Hon'ble Court could adjudicate; that the said project is a matter which falls within the exclusive domain of executive policy as to what infrastructure project is in the best interest of the citizens of Mumbai and the environment and that if it is to be assumed that the aforesaid PILs are maintainable, which certainly they are not, then the millions of citizens of Mumbai, who support the coastal road project and who are the beneficiaries thereof and whose fundamental right of commuting will be infringed, ought to be heard.  Shri Nedumpara further pointed out that if the said PIL Petitioners have a right to seek a declaration that the coastal road project is illegal and unconstitutional, then a right which is akin to their right is vested in the millions of citizens of Mumbai who support the project and the Petitioners in particular for a declaration that the project is constitutional. 

4. This Hon'ble Court, however, declined to take on record the Writ Petition so tendered across the Bar and directed the Petitioners to file it in the Registry.  It was accordingly instituted in no loss of time on 28th June, 2019 when the hearing of the aforesaid PILs was almost over.  After instituting the Writ Petition (L) No. 1974 of 2019, the Petitioners mentioned the matter before the Court at 5.00 p.m. on 28th June, 2019.  On 1st July, 2019 Mrs. Rohini M. Amin representing the Petitioners moved a praecipe for taking the Writ Petition on board.  This Hon'ble Court was pleased to decline the said plea.  Again at 1.00 p.m. on the same day an attempt was made to mention the matter, which too did not succeed.  The Petitioners again mentioned the matter before the rising of the Court when the Court was pleased to announce that the PILs are reserved for pronouncement of orders.  The Petitioners beg to submit with utmost respect that this Hon'ble Court declined their plea to be heard, particularly on the point as to the non-maintainability of the PILs and, if they are maintainable, to afford them and millions of citizens of Mumbai who support the project a hearing.  This Hon'ble Court, the Petitioners beg to submit with utmost respect, has denied an opportunity of hearing to them who support the coastal road project; so too millions of citizens of Mumbai whose long cherished dream is the said project.  Every moment’s delay in the completion of the coastal road project results in the violation of their right to life, for, denial of access to the city is denial of their very right to life.

5. It is well settled in law that till a judgment in a case is pronounced in the open Court, there is no judgment, no matter whether a draft of the judgment is prepared and signed.  Pronouncement of judgment in the open Court is the very core of the hearing of a case.  A Judge is free to change his mind till the judgment is pronounced and it is thereafter signed. If a Judge is free to change his mind before the judgment is pronounced, the parties to the cause and particularly the Petitioners, who were not afforded an opportunity of hearing, so too the citizens of Mumbai, are entitled to seek (i)  permit the Applicants/Petitioners to intervene in PIL (Lodging) Nos.36 and 44 of 2019; so too for recall of the order dated 1st July, 2019 by which PIL (Lodging) Nos.36 and 44 of 2019 are reserved for pronouncement of orders and (ii) an opportunity to be heard.

6. The Petitioners not being parties to PIL (Lodging) Nos.36 and 44 of 2019, though they ought to have been made parties, for, the said PILs cannot be maintained without those who support the coastal road project being arrayed as parties, the Petitioners are constrained to seek reopening of the said PILs as third parties thereto.  Procedure is only a handmaid of justice and not its mistress.  The accompanying Notice of Motion for intervention; so too for recall of the order dated 1st July, 2019 by which PIL (Lodging) Nos.36 and 44 of 2019 are reserved for pronouncement of orders and further opportunity to be heard is only to be allowed in the interests of justice.

7. Similarly, since the above Writ Petition instituted by the Petitioner was refused to be listed and the Petitioners were not heard, they are entitled to seek recall of the order dated 1st July, 2019; they be heard and the above Writ Petition seeking a declaration that the coastal road project is constitutional be listed along with PIL (Lodging) Nos.36 and 44 of 2019 and be heard together.  Hence, the accompanying Notice of Motion.

Solemnly affirmed at Mumbai ]
on this ___day of  July, 2019. ]        Applicant/Interveners


Advocates for the Petitioners

















IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

NOTICE OF MOTION NO._______ OF 2019

IN
PIL NO (ST) 44 OF 2019


JYOTI CHAUDHARY … Applicant/ Intervener

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

Shweta Wagh & Ors … Petitioner

  Versus

Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay  and Ors. … Respondents












NOTICE OF MOTION
Dated this 5th day of July, 2019











MRS. ROHINI M. AMIN,
Advocates for Applicant Interveners
304, Hari Chambers, 3rd Floor,
S.B.S. Road, Near Old Custom House, Fort, Mumbai-400 023.
(Mobile: 9920477447)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

NOTICE OF MOTION NO._______ OF 2019

IN
PIL NO (ST) 44 OF 2019


JYOTI CHAUDHARY … Applicant/ Intervener

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

Shweta Wagh & Ors … Petitioner

  Versus

Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay  and Ors. … Respondents











AFFIDAVIT –IN- NOTICE OF MOTION
Dated this 5th day of July, 2019










MRS. ROHINI M. AMIN,
Advocates for Applicant Interveners
304, Hari Chambers, 3rd Floor,
S.B.S. Road, Near Old Custom House, Fort, Mumbai-400 023.
(Mobile: 9920477447)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

FDA Maharashtra Directory Contact Moblie Number

Food and Drug Administration Directory  DOWNLOAD JUNE 2021 CONTACT LIST PLZ CLICK ADVERTISEMENT TO SUPPORT THIS WEBSITE FOR REVENUE FROM ADVERTISEMENT Field Office Circle Head (Assit Commissioner Address of Field Office Inspector AHMEDNAGAR A.T. RATHOD (7045757882) 19C, Siddhivinayak Colony,,Near Auxillium School, Savedi,,Ahmednagar - 414003 J.H.SHAIKH (9158424524) AKOLA H. Y. METKAR (9730155370) Civil Line, Akashwani Road, ,Akola ,AKOLA H. Y. METKAR (9730155370) AMARAVATI U.B.GHAROTE (9595829895) Office of the Joint Commissioner,Jawade Compound, Near Bus Stand,Amrawati-444 601 C. K. DANGE (9422844477) AURANGABAD S. S. KALE (9987236658) Office of the Joint Commissioner,,2nd floor, Nath Super Market, Aurangpura,Aurangabad R. M. BAJAJ (9422496941) AURANGABAD Zone 2 ...

RTE & School Quota Of Kalyan Dombivli KDMC Region Thane

 Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Region School Quota and RTE 25% quota details received from RTI reply from KDMC Education department. Almost in all the schools free education seats for income below Rs1lac is vacant .The vacant seats are illegally filled by private school in open category by private schools by taking donations. KDMC education didnot taken any action. Total approved strength of class is 4 times of RTE quota. If RTE 25% quota is 25 then approved students limit is 100 students. Means 75 students from general and 25 from RTE 25% quota. In all the schools students are more than from approved strength and RTE 25% seats are vacant. It means RTE seats are filled by general students. As per RTE Act 2009 poor quota seats ie RTE25% cannot be filled by general quota in any condition and at any class. Helpline 9702859636  RTE Admission 

हिन्दू शब्द वेदों से लिया गया है ना की फ़ारसी से

  HINDU WORD ORIGIN PLZ CLICK ADVERTISEMENT TO SUPPORT THIS WEBSITE FOR REVENUE FROM ADVERTISEMENT हिन्दू शब्द सिंधु से बना है  औऱ यह फारसी शब्द है। परंतु ऐसा कुछ नहीं है! ये केवल झुठ फ़ैलाया जाता है।ये नितांत असत्य है  ........ "हिन्दू"* शब्द की खोज - *"हीनं दुष्यति इति हिन्दूः से हुई है।”* *अर्थात* जो अज्ञानता और हीनता का त्याग करे उसे हिन्दू कहते हैं। 'हिन्दू' शब्द, करोड़ों वर्ष प्राचीन, संस्कृत शब्द से है! यदि संस्कृत के इस शब्द का सन्धि विछेदन करें तो पायेंगे .... *हीन+दू* = हीन भावना + से दूर *अर्थात* जो हीन भावना या दुर्भावना से दूर रहे, मुक्त रहे, वो हिन्दू है ! हमें बार-बार, सदा झूठ ही बतलाया जाता है कि हिन्दू शब्द मुगलों ने हमें दिया, जो *"सिंधु" से "हिन्दू"* हुआ l *हिन्दू शब्द की वेद से ही उत्पत्ति है !* जानिए, कहाँ से आया हिन्दू शब्द, और कैसे हुई इसकी उत्पत्ति ? हमारे "वेदों" और "पुराणों" में *हिन्दू शब्द का उल्लेख* मिलता है। आज हम आपको बता रहे हैं कि हमें हिन्दू शब्द कहाँ से मिला है! "ऋग्वेद" के *"...