Who blessed pan shop? High Court pulls up Mumbai civic body for footpath stall
The petition alleged that despite the BMC demolishing the illegal stall in November 2019, it had resurfaced and continued to operate without any valid license or permission. An inspection report dated July 17, 2023, confirmed the existence of the stall, which lacked both health and trade licenses.The BMC informed the court that a notice had been issued to the stall operator on July 23, 2025, under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, giving 48 hours for voluntary removal. Failing compliance, the civic body stated it would proceed with demolition.Although represented by legal counsel, the stall owner failed to file a reply affidavit. The court noted this as a tacit admission of the stall's illegality.Calling the structure a 'rank unauthorised' encroachment, the bench underscored that footpaths are public spaces meant for pedestrian use and cannot be appropriated for private profit. The court also questioned how the stall obtained an electricity connection and why BMC officials had not taken suo motu action earlier."Such lawlessness cannot be permitted," the bench observed, directing the Municipal Commissioner to issue show-cause notices to the Ward Officer, Assistant Commissioner and relevant Field Officers. The court also ordered that a compliance report be filed by September 4, 2025.The matter is scheduled for further hearing on July 29, 2025, when the court will review the status of the stall's removal and the progress of the internal enquiry.- EndsMust Watch
IN THIS STORY#Mumbai
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
12 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Protestors tear Dadar kabutarkhana plastic cover, feed pigeons despite HC order
STRAP: Hours later, the leaders backtracked and claimed the vandals were 'outsiders' Protestors tear Dadar kabutarkhana plastic cover, feed pigeons despite HC order MUMBAI: Despite the order by the chief minister and an upcoming Bombay high court hearing, a 1,000-strong mob of the Jain community descended on the Dadar Kabutarkhana on Wednesday morning. With women taking the lead, they began attacking the plastic covering thrown over the kabutarkhana with knives and blades even as the police tried in vain to stop them. Damage done, they proceeded to pour sacks of chana for the pigeons on the traffic island in direct contravention of the court order and BMC rules. Hours later, however, the Dadar Kabutarkhana Trust and the Jain community backtracked and claimed they were not responsible for the vandalism. 'On Tuesday night, we sent out messages to say the protest had been postponed, as our meeting with the CM was favourable,' said trustee Sandeep Doshi, displaying the alleged message. 'It was outsiders who came and caused the havoc. Then the crowd's anger took over, all to make us look bad politically.' Vijayraj Parmar, chairman of the Shantinathji Maharaj Jain Derasar Trust opposite Dadar Kabutarkhana, parroted this, saying the 'protestors' were not from Dadar. 'But they saw hundreds of pigeons dying after the feeding stopped, and wanted to stop it immediately,' he said. However, many shopkeepers in the area and BMC officials clearly stated the protestors were from the Jain community, having shown their allegiance to the cause of pigeon feeding, including holding a protest march last Sunday. Eyewitnesses reported seeing the protestors coming from 9.30 am, waiting at the Jain temple for a bit before getting riled up and moving in for the attack. By the time the police could control the crowd, the damage was already done. 'We were taken by surprise,' said an official from G North ward. 'Initially, we were informed that the protest had been called off. But the crowd turned up and tore off the plastic covering. As this is a sensitive issue, we will wait to hear the Bombay high court's order on Thursday.' Puran Doshi, a former corporator, also parroted the account that the protestors were not locals and went on to call the HC order 'misguided'. 'Pigeons are one among the many causes of pulmonary diseases, and yet the head of the pulmonary department at KEM hospital has only zeroed in on pigeons, and not many other things that are harmful,' he said. 'The Maharashtra government and BMC are acting in the interests of the towers around the kabutarkhana. I will demand an inquiry into this.' Sandeep Doshi also skirted around the established medical science fact that pigeons feathers and droppings are proven to cause health issues. 'Smoking and alcohol too are injurious to health, yet the government just prints warnings on them and allows their sale,' he said. 'Similarly, they should put warning boards at the kabutarkhana that people with respiratory issues should keep their distance.' Citizens of Mumbai were outraged at the show of force at the kabutarkhana in clear contravention of the law. 'They openly tore down the BMC's makeshift shed and fed pigeons—in full view of the media and police and in direct violation of Bombay high court orders. Where are the FIRs?' demanded Chetan Kamble, a Dadar resident and founder of NGO Chakachak Dadar who was present at the spot. 'When the law is defied so brazenly, and no action is taken, it sends a dangerous message: that some groups are above the law. The police were mute spectators throughout. Public health, court orders and civic governance cannot be sacrificed at the altar of appeasement.' The Andheri Lokhandwala Oshiwara Citizens Association (LOCA) termed the events of Wednesday 'hooliganism' and asked for the perpetrators to be booked for obstructing civil servants from performing their duty and damaging public property. Photos of the Jain temple with netted balconies irked those on social media, questioning why the temple was allowing pigeons to flourish but leaving them out of their premises. Chief minister Devendra Fadnavis on Wednesday reacted to the attack only by saying that the government was trying to find a middle ground. 'We will place a few measures before the court so that this tradition will not be disrupted and at the same time there won't be any health issues,' Fadnavis told reporters in Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar. NCP (SP) legislator Rohit Pawar, who was at Dadar Kaburtarkhana and supported the aggressive protest of the Jain community, emphasised that alternatives needed to be found. 'The pigeons could die, as feeding was completely stopped suddenly,' he said. 'This injustice to birds has no place in the Jain and Hindu communities. 'The BMC should come out with a solution. Rohit astutely added that no one wanted to insult the court. 'They were all trying to save the lives of pigeons,' he said.
Hindustan Times
12 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Abu Salem must serve full prison term of 25 years, state tells HC
MUMBAI: The state government has informed the Bombay High Court that gangster Abu Salem Abdul Qayyum Ansari, one of the convicts in the March 1993 Mumbai serial bombings case, is not entitled to remission, a reduction in the length of time an inmate serves in jail. Abu Salem was arrested in Lisbon, Portugal, on September 18, 2002, and handed over to India on November 10, 2005. (PTI) In an affidavit filed on July 31, Aruna Mugutrao, superintendent of the Nashik central jail, stated that on July 14, the home department had passed an order stating that Salem was not entitled to remission and he should be released from jail only after serving his actual prison sentence of 25 years. Salem was arrested in Lisbon, Portugal, on September 18, 2002, and handed over to India on November 10, 2005. He was brought to India the next day. Salem was sentenced to life imprisonment by a local court in September 2017, for his role in the 1993 Mumbai serial bomb blasts. While deciding his appeal, the Supreme Court held that Salem would be entitled to be released on completing a prison term of 25 years – in terms of the sovereign assurance given by India to Portugal at the time of his extradition. The affidavit filed by Mugutrao stated that the home department had on July 14 passed an order, holding that Salem was otherwise liable to serve a prison term of 60 years, including remission. But in view of India's sovereign assurance to Portugal, he should be released from jail on completing actual imprisonment of 25 years, excluding remissions. Mugutrao clarified that the government decision, dated July 14, 2025, was passed in accordance with the International Agreement entered into between the Government of India and the Government of Portugal. The affidavit was filed in response to a petition filed by Salem on February 3 through advocate Farhana Shah, stating that he would be completing a 25-year prison term, including remissions, on March 31, 2025, and therefore entitled to be released on that date. He claimed he was entitled to remissions – both general as well as special. He claimed that considering the remissions, he had completed 25 years of imprisonment by including time spent as an undertrial prisoner, and the regular and special remissions he had earned over the years since his extradition to India from Portugal. His petition added that the Supreme Court had upheld his plea that he cannot be sentenced to more than 25 years in view of the solemn assurance given by the central government to their counterparts in Portugal.
The Hindu
12 hours ago
- The Hindu
Bombay HC's larger Bench to settle if caste scrutiny committees have power to recall orders based on fraud
The Bombay High Court has referred to a larger Bench the question of whether caste scrutiny committees under the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000, can recall their own orders if caste validity certificates were obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression of material facts. The referral was made by a Division Bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Y.G. Khobragade at the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court on August 4, 2025. The court was hearing petitions filed by Santosh Anil Kolhe, Sham Anil Kolhe, Sharad Arunrao Kolhe, and Balaji Arunrao Kolhe, all residents of Jamb village in Nanded district, who challenged the cancellation of their caste validity certificates by the Kinwat-based Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, headquartered at Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. The committee revoked their certificates on May 15, 2025, citing fraud and suppression of relevant facts. The petitioners, represented by Advocate Pratap V. Jadhavar, argued that scrutiny committees do not have the statutory authority to review or recall their decisions. They relied on judgments such as Rakesh Bhimashankar Umbarje v. State of Maharashtra and Bharat Nagu Garud v. State of Maharashtra, where the High Court had held that once a validity certificate is issued, the committee becomes functus officio and that only the High Court under Article 226 can interfere. Additional Government pleaders S.P. Sonpawale and Saie S. Joshi argued that scrutiny committees must retain the power to recall certificates obtained by fraud, even if such power is not expressly provided in the 2000 Act. They cited judgments including Rajeshwar Baburao Bone, where the High Court and Supreme Court upheld a committee's decision to cancel a fraudulently obtained certificate. The State maintained that fraud vitiates every legal act and cannot be protected by procedural limitations. After hearing the argument, the Bench noted that different Benches of the High Court have taken conflicting views on the issue and observed that while excessive use of recall powers could destabilize settled rights, preventing scrutiny committees from correcting fraudulent outcomes would undermine the integrity of the validation process. It noted that scrutiny committees have quasi-judicial powers and are better positioned than writ courts to assess factual fraud in caste claims. 'But, that in itself cannot be the basis to hold that in no circumstances can the Scrutiny Committee exercise its inherent power of recalling its earlier order, which has been obtained on the basis of fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of material facts. It cannot be countenanced that orders upholding tribe claims and grant of validity certificates obtained on falsehoods, fabrications, fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of material facts, when noticed subsequently, cannot become the basis of reopening such cases,' the court order said. It is also relevant to note that the Scrutiny Committee is better equipped to examine the aspects of fraud, fabrication and misrepresentation as it has some powers akin to those of a civil court, as compared to this Court exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it added. The purity of the process, once found to be polluted has to be dealt with and therefore, we find that important questions arise for consideration that need to be authoritatively settled by a larger Bench of this Court, the Bench observed. 'Hence, we take recourse to Rule 9(A) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, to formulate questions to be answered by a larger bench in the light of apparent conflict in the aforementioned views of various division benches of this Court.' The court has asked five questions: (i) Whether the Scrutiny Committee constituted under the Act of 2000, has the power to recall its order on the ground that it is vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of material facts ? (ii) Being a creature of the statute i.e. the Act of 2000, the Scrutiny Committee does not have power of substantive review due to absence of any such provision under the said statute, but does it denude the Scrutiny Committee of its inherent power to recall its own order on the ground of fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of material facts ? (iii) If the Scrutiny Committee does have such limited power of recalling its order on the aforesaid grounds, what are the contours of the same and what safeguards must be applied so that a situation of rampant recalling of orders is avoided? (iv) Whether such a safeguard can include necessity of seeking leave of the High Court, in the light of the stipulation in Section 7(2) of the Act of 2000? (v) Whether the judgments of Division Benches of this Court in the cases of Rakesh Bhimashankar Umbarje Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) and Bharat Nagu Garud Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), need to be revisited to the limited extent indicated above? The matter has now been placed before the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court for constituting an appropriate larger bench to decide the issue.
