Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, Sanjiv Manmohan Gupta, carrying on business as M/s. Global Advertisers, challenged the order dated 20th August 2021 allotting a hoarding site in favor of Respondent No. 5, Ganesh Shetty, and the order dated 25th April 2022 rejecting the Petitioner's review application. The dispute concerned the allotment of a hoarding site for display of advertisements at Government Land at CTS No.679 (Part) at Bandra, Mumbai. The State Government had allotted the site to Respondent No. 5. The Petitioner argued that the allotment was arbitrary and contrary to policy. The Court examined the facts and found that the Collector had followed the applicable policy in making the allotment. The Minister, in rejecting the review, had considered the Petitioner's contentions and found no merit. The Court held that there was no violation of natural justice or any illegality in the allotment process. The petition was dismissed, upholding the allotment to Respondent No. 5 and the rejection of the review.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Allotment of Hoarding Sites - Government Policy - The dispute pertained to the allotment of a hoarding site on government land - The Collector allotted the site to Respondent No. 5 based on a policy - The Petitioner challenged the allotment and sought review - The Minister rejected the review application - Held that the Collector's decision was in accordance with policy and the review was rightly rejected (Paras 1-16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the allotment of a hoarding site to Respondent No. 5 was valid and whether the rejection of the Petitioner's review application was justified.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The allotment of the hoarding site to Respondent No. 5 and the rejection of the review application are upheld.
Law Points
- Administrative Law
- Natural Justice
- Review
- Allotment of Hoarding Sites
- Government Policy
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (10) 61
Writ Petition No.10300 OF 2022
Mr. Vishal Kanade a/w Mr. Bhushan Deshmukh i/by Mr. Girish Kedia, Mr. Krushang Kedia, Mr. Manoj Agre for the Petitioners; Mr. Shailendra Kanetkar a/w Ms. Ketki Gadkari, Ms. Aishwarya Shinde for Respondent No.5; Mr. C. D. Mali, AGP for Respondent No.1
State of Maharashtra, The District Collector, The Hon’ble Minister for State, Revenue & Forest Department, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, Mr. Ganesh Shetty
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition challenging allotment of hoarding site and rejection of review application.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of allotment order dated 20th August 2021 and review rejection order dated 25th April 2022.
Filing Reason
Petitioner alleged that the allotment of hoarding site to Respondent No. 5 was arbitrary and contrary to policy.
Previous Decisions
Collector allotted hoarding site to Respondent No. 5 on 20th August 2021; Minister rejected Petitioner's review on 25th April 2022.
Issues
Whether the allotment of hoarding site to Respondent No. 5 was valid.
Whether the rejection of the Petitioner's review application was justified.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the allotment was arbitrary and not in accordance with policy.
Respondent No. 5 contended that the allotment was valid and followed due process.
Ratio Decidendi
The Collector's allotment was based on a valid policy and the Minister's rejection of the review was justified; no illegality or violation of natural justice found.
Judgment Excerpts
By this petition, Petitioners challenge order dated 20th August 2021 allotting a hoarding site in favour of Respondent No. 5 as well as Order dated 25th April 2022 passed by Minister–Revenue rejecting Petitioner’s Review Application.
Procedural History
The Petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the allotment order dated 20th August 2021 and the review rejection order dated 25th April 2022. The petition was heard and reserved on 11th October 2023, and judgment pronounced on 19th October 2023.
