The welfare association for residents in a Delhi locality sought the cancellation of the allotment of a site in the area to set up a school. It contended that this would cause nuisance to people in the neighbourhood and that the authorities had already revoked the allotment earlier. The Delhi High Court held that as per the earlier scheme, the area was earmarked for industrial purposes and there was no final withdrawal of the allotment. The court said relief could not be granted on the basis of a mere apprehension of inconvenience (Residents Welfare Association vs Union of India).
The Maharashtra Heritage Conservation Committee (MHCC) directed the appellant to remove its hoarding from the Mahalaxmi Precinct as it violated the guidelines relating to heritage buildings and precincts. When his writ petition was dismissed, the appellant preferred his appeal before the Supreme Court. He contended that the Schedule, which lists ‘precincts’ in one column and ‘location’ in another, lists Mahalaxmi Precincts as a ‘location’. The Supreme Court held that there were inaccuracies in the Schedule, but the state intended to treat Mahalaxmi Precinct as a heritage precinct (Mass Holdings Pvt Ltd vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai)
The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion by the wife. The husband filed the petition in 1989, contending that his wife started living separately since 1984. The wife opposed the petition with numerous allegations that were found to be unsubstantiated. The wife admitted to staying separately because of employment initially, but she couldn’t explain why she stayed apart from her husband later. The court said that since the wife had left her home, shown disrespect to the relationship and made false allegations, the husband could not be expected to ignore such misconduct (Dharam Pal vs Smt Pushpa Devi).
SOLON
