Latest news with #BombayHighCourt
Indian Express
18 minutes ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
‘Alarming situation', says HC on 10 deaths per day in Mumbai local train system; suggests use of automatic doors
Expressing deep concern over the 'alarming and disturbing situation' of fatalities on Mumbai's suburban railway system, with nearly 10 deaths occurring daily, the Bombay High Court Friday suggested that the railways consider installing automatically closing doors on local trains to prevent commuters from falling off. The court said that the 'unfortunate' Mumbra train accident reported earlier this month, in which five commuters lost their lives after falling off overcrowded trains, should not have happened. It pointed out that as per an earlier response by the railways, nearly 3,588 deaths took place on the Central Railway (CR) and Western Railway (WR) suburban systems in 2024, and said that measures taken so far are insufficient. The high court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by one Yatin Jadhav, a daily commuter who raised concerns over the high rate of fatalities in the second busiest suburban railway system in the world and sought the formation of an expert panel to recommend measures to eliminate deaths due to untoward incidents. Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, representing the Centre, informed the division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V Marne that the railways have a high-level monitoring committee which has a 'zero death mission' in place, and a multi-disciplinary committee headed by a senior divisional safety officer has now been formed to examine what led to the accident in Mumbai. The court then directed the concerned committees to consider the suggestions by the petitioner, represented by senior advocate Rohan Shah and advocate Surabhi Prabhudesai, and place their recommendations on record within three weeks, along with the timelines within which such measures can be implemented. 'What disturbs us is that in 2024, 3,588 deaths took place on CR and WR, which averages to 10 deaths per day. So every day, 10 Mumbaikars die while travelling on the train. And these numbers of deaths are due to falling down from a train, (being) hit by a pole or (due to) gap between the footboards and the platform. This is an alarming situation. This is your data. Though you (railways) have projected that there is a reduction of deaths by 46 per cent compared to 2009, it is still not sufficient,' Justice Marne remarked orally. CJ Aradhe added, 'This (Mumbra incident) should not have happened. But, obviously, these measures which you (railways) have taken are not sufficient… The local train (doors) should not be open so that there is no scope for overcrowding. You should provide automatic doors which close. Why can't you do that to achieve your goal? This is one of the suggestions as a layperson. We are not experts in rail safety, but probably this may be one of the major suggestions of the committee.' In August last year, the railways informed the high court that over 45,000 lives were lost in the suburban railway system in over 15 years. ASG Singh submitted that railway authorities were taking steps under its 'zero death mission', including construction of boundary walls and fencing walls near the tracks, along with partitions between tracks to avoid trespassing and crossing, besides removing some stalls on platforms which become overcrowded, and said the authorities will continue to take further steps. He further submitted that while the authorities are taking steps to improve the system, there are constraints as they can construct such walls or fences only during late-night hours as trains cannot be halted, else the entire city will come to a standstill. Singh added that the multidisciplinary committee examining the causes of the Mumbra incident shall soon suggest remedial measures, which will be produced before the court along with timelines to implement them. Seeking a response from the railway committees, the high court posted further hearing for July 14.
Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Bombay HC stays interim order in domestic violence case, subject to ex-minister depositing 50% maintenance amount
The Bombay High Court on Thursday granted an interim stay on a trial court order that directed a Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) leader and former minister to pay monthly interim maintenance to his estranged partner in a domestic violence case. However, the high court said that the stay is subject to his depositing the 50 per cent amount awarded in favour of the estranged partner in the court. The high court will hear the leader's plea after eight weeks. A single-judge bench of Justice Manjusha A Deshpande was hearing the NCP leader's plea, argued through advocates Shardul Singh and Sayali Sawant, that challenged an April 5 sessions court order that rejected his appeal against an interim order by a magistrate directing him to pay Rs 1.25 lakh to his estranged partner and Rs 75, 000 to their daughter. On February 4, a magistrate court in Bandra had partly allowed the woman's plea and ordered interim maintenance. The magistrate had observed that there was a prima facie proof of domestic violence against the former minister. However, the ex-minister approached the sessions court, challenging the magistrate's order. He claimed that he had never married the woman, and as the domestic relationship between them had ceased to exist, she could not file a plea under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The sessions court, while rejecting the leader's appeal, had noted that he and his estranged partner and their daughter 'are entitled for the same lifestyle which is being enjoyed by the appellant. Even if it is presumed that respondent (estranged partner) is earning, she is also entitled for maintenance to maintain their lifestyle as of the appellant (NCP leader)'. Aggrieved by the same, the NCP leader approached the high court, claiming that documents relied upon by the respondent woman were 'fabricated and forged', and he had filed a police complaint regarding the same, and therefore the trial court order based on the same was 'erroneous'. The petitioner further claimed that the woman had a substantial income, which is reflected in her earlier election affidavit, which the trial court failed to consider. He added that he was not contesting the maintenance amount granted in favour of the daughter.
Indian Express
13 hours ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
In slum rehabilitation schemes HC upholds decision for open spaces, says 35% be strictly reserved for public park
The Bombay High Court on Thursday upheld the state government's 2022 regulation permitting non-buildable open spaces exceeding 500 square metres in the city to be used for slum rehabilitation (SR) schemes. However, it has directed that at least 35% of the vacant space on such lands used for SR Schemes must be treated as a public amenity, such as a functional and usable public park, and not as a private area for residents only. The HC was hearing the plea, challenging the consistent use of public open spaces (POS) that are reserved for recreational purposes to implement SR schemes. Such public open spaces used for SR schemes are those which are otherwise non-buildable and reserved under the Development Plan for parks, gardens, playgrounds, etc. The HC also directed the BMC to complete the GIS-based mapping and geo-tagging of all plots designated as open space in the sanctioned development plan and the same be published on its website within four months. The bench said that once the SR project is completed, 35 % of its open space must be handed over to civic bodies for management within 90 days of obtaining occupation certificate for the project, unless the corporation permits joint maintenance with housing a society and such space shall not be enclosed or restrict entry of local public. 'No portion of the open space shall be reserved exclusively for any private group, resident association, or developer,' it noted. The HC directed the state government and Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) to form a dedicated committee or appoint a senior officer to oversee implementation of regulation on the ground and quarterly reports be submitted to the SRA and Urban Development Department (UDD), which shall be uploaded on their websites. A division bench of Justices Amit Borkar and Somasekhar Sundaresan passed a verdict on a plea by NGO Alliance for Governance and Renewal (NAGAR) and others, argued through senior advocate Shiraz Rustomjee. The petitioners had challenged the Regulation 17 (3)(D)(2) of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR), 2034 under Maharashtra Regional Town Planning (MRTP) Act inserted in the year 2022. The impugned decision allowed that non-buildable open spaces of over 500 square metres can be used for SR schemes, provided 35 % of the ground area is kept vacant and continued to serve the designated public reservation. However, the petitioners argued that the said regulation in effect legalised the diversion of up to 65 % of land from the reserved public use and permitted its use for construction. Therefore, the said regulation diluted the purpose of reservation and was robbing Mumbai of its much-needed green and open spaces,' they added. Rustomjee argued that public parks and open spaces 'should not be sacrificed to accommodate encroachments or private development, even under the banner of welfare schemes.' The petitioners further argued that the 2022 decision was an extension of the 1992 notification, They added that that while the 1992 notification sought minimum plot size of 1000 square metres, the 2022 regulation reduced it to 500 square metres, which will lead to more smaller open plots available for construction and further reducing already scarce open space in the city. In a 191-page judgement, Justice Borkar for the bench observed that the impugned decision 'tries to achieve the balance' that the government has to strike between its duties to protect, improve urban environment and to ensure shelter and safety for weaker sections of the society. Upholding the validity of the regulation in question, the HC also said disciplinary action be taken in case of any violations and projects retaining more than 35 % vacant space should be encouraged. It also directed the BMC to give ward wise action plans listing all reserved open spaces to UDD and conduct quarterly inspections to identify encroachments. Among a slew of directions, the court also asked the state government to undertake a comprehensive policy review of the impugned regulation within two years. It said that HC verdict should not be 'read as giving a free hand to the State to reduce open spaces in the city.'
India Today
14 hours ago
- Politics
- India Today
High Court raps Maharashtra for delay in opposing bail in suicide abetment case
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday pulled up the Maharashtra government for failing to challenge a bail order on time while opposing bail to another accused on grounds of parity in a case of abetment of suicide. The court granted bail to Chetan Patil, who faced the case under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). The other co-accused in the case had already been granted Amit Borkar, hearing Patil's bail plea, strongly criticised the state government for procedural delays, saying, 'Mere intention or contemplation to file an appeal against a bail order does not automatically dilute the legal effect or binding nature of such an order unless and until it is paused, modified or set aside by a higher forum.'Patil, along with three others, is accused of assaulting a man and abetting his suicide. The case was registered in Thane district. The alleged incident occurred on January 29, 2023, when the informant received a call from his brother, claiming that Patil and his associates had assaulted him and extorted money using a metal seiser. The assault reportedly caused panic in the locality, leading shopkeepers and residents to shut their shops out of next day, one of the co-accused allegedly threatened the victim against approaching the police. On January 31, 2023, the victim was found dead by suicide, and a note recovered from the scene named one Dhiraj, allegedly accompanied by Rohit and Patil, as responsible for the earlier Rohit was already granted bail, Patil's lawyer, advocate Nitin Sejpal, sought bail on Public Prosecutor Pallavi Dabholkar opposed the plea, saying the state government was in the process of challenging Rohit's bail and requested the court to defer Patil's hearing until the matter was this submission, the court observed, 'Merely saying that a proposal is 'under consideration' is not sufficient to deprive another similarly situated accused of the benefit of parity.'Justice Borkar underscored that a proper appeal must follow a clear process, noting, 'There is a well-defined procedure to challenge an order passed by this court. If an officer of the prosecution department or police department believes that the said order deserves to be challenged, such an opinion must be translated into a concrete proposal.""This proposal must contain logical and justifiable reasons, supported by the record, and must be submitted to the Law and Judiciary Department of the Maharashtra government within a reasonable time," he Borkar emphasised the need for transparency and accountability in administrative decisions."It is expected that the officer or authority who considers such a proposal at the government level should pass a reasoned order either granting or refusing permission to file such an appeal. A bare, one-line note saying that permission is 'not necessary' cannot be considered sufficient compliance," he said."Judicial accountability and transparency in administrative decision-making demand that the order rejecting such a proposal must reflect application of mind and record reasons which indicate consideration of the facts of the case. Such reasoning forms the bedrock of the doctrine of fairness in administrative law," he Watch IN THIS STORY#Maharashtra
Time of India
15 hours ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Maintenance: HC stays order against ex-min
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Thursday stayed a lower court's order that directed former minister and NCP neta Dhananjay Munde to pay interim maintenance to a woman who claims to be his first wife subject to him depositing 50% of the amount in court. Justice Manjusha Deshpande directed the stay on the April 5 order of a sessions court that had upheld a magistrate's order. On Feb 4, the magistrate had directed Munde to pay the woman Rs 1.25 lakh per month and Rs 75,000 per month to their daughter under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (DV) Act. Munde's petition said he has been legally married to his wife since 2001 and they have three children. He denied marrying the woman (complainant) and said the DV Act is not applicable in this case. He said she was aware of his marital status when they entered into a relationship. The woman claimed she married Munde in 1999. tnn
