Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 46 - 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 55

A weekly round-up of important legal developments in Bombay.Nominal IndexDatta Mane vs State of MaharashtraNitesh Singh & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & Ors. Saurabh Ashok Nikam vs State of Maharashtra Amitabh Bachchan & Anr. V/s. The Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai & Ors. Hiten Dhirajlal Mehta vs Bhansali Productions Federation of Retail Trade vs State of Maharashtra High Court on its own motion (in the matter of Jilani Building at Bhiwandi) vs Bhiwandi Nizampur Municipal Corporation & Others Nanasaheb Vasantrao Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. Ramesh Tukaram Vavekar v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 1. Maharashtra Govt Appoints DGP From UPSC Panel, Bombay High Court Disposes Of Advocate's PIL Case Title: Datta Mane vs State of Maharashtra Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 46 High Court disposed of an advocate's PIL seeking appointment of a permanent Director General of Police in Maharashtra from the three names recommended by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) panel after the State appointed IPS officer Rajnish Seth as the new DGP on February 18. The state decided to reconsider its decision after the High Court observed that the state had gone out of it's way to push the case of its senior most IPS officer - Sanjay Pandey's name for DGP.2. Section 18 (2) MMC Act - In Maharashtra, Election Commissioner Can Delegate Any of His Powers to Civic Officer Above Rank of Ward OfficerCase Title: Nitesh Singh & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & Ors.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 47Observing that a PIL filed by rival political party members (BJP and MNS) against the ruling Maha Vikas Aghadi coalition in Maharashtra was "politically motivated" and without "necessary disclosures" the Bombay High Court dismissed the plea and imposed costs of Rs 50,000 on the petitionerThe bench held that under Article 243ZA(2) the state is permitted to make provisions regarding election to Municipalities. In Maharashtra, the State Election Commissioner may by order delegate any of his powers and functions to any officer of the Corporation not below the rank of the Ward Officer according to section 18(2) of the MMC Act.The High Court held that according to an SEC order from January 27, 2005 there is a bar on re-drawing the limits of a municipal corporation six months before the election. However, "The bar does not apply to alteration of Ward boundaries within the Corporation area." 3. Caste Certificate Can't Be Denied Saying Claimant's Lifestyle Does Not Match Traditional Community Traits; Affinity Test Not The Litmus Test: Bombay High Court Case Title: Saurabh Ashok Nikam vs State of Maharashtra Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 48 Observing that affinity test is not the litmus test for a Caste Validity Certificate when family members' documents from as far back as the year 1927 show the same caste, the Bombay High Court directed issuance of caste certificate to the petitioner before the court. "In our view, if anyone claims he belongs to a particular caste, one cannot expect that such person should use traditions and traits of that community in his day to day life, as due to modernisation, the present lifestyle of particular community may not match with traditional characteristics of their tribe community. The affinity test is not a litmus test," a division bench ruled recently. The bench, by the abovementioned observation, also negated the Caste Scrutiny Committee's observations that the petitioners dialect of 'impure Marathi' was differed from the Thakur community's dialect. Moreover, the petitioner's festival and marriage rituals were performed the Hindu way instead of the traditional Thakur community way. 4. Juhu Land Acquisition Row: Bombay HC Directs BMC To Decide Amitabh Bachchan's Representation, No Coercive Action Till Then Case Title: Amitabh Bachchan & Anr. V/s. The Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai & Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 49 The court protected actor Amitabh Bachchan and his wife Jaya Bachchan for 11 weeks over notices for acquisition of a part of their Juhu land for road widening. This is the same plot on which their bungalow Prateeksha stands. It directed the Municipal Commissioner to decide a February 17, 2022 representation made by the family within six weeks. If required by the petitioners or the commissioner, a personal hearing may be given, the bench said. The Bachchans had contended that the notices fall under a section of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act that is inconsistent with safeguards under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and therefore void. 5. Can't Decide Whether A Film's Material Denigrates A Community Or Not Without A Challenge To Censor Certificate: Bombay High Court Case Title: Hiten Dhirajlal Mehta vs Bhansali Productions Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 50 There...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 46 - 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 55

Sharmeen Hakim

Tags