IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BHARATI DANGRE, MANJUSHA DESHPANDE
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Through the Municipal Commissioner – Appellant
Versus
G.D’souza – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
BHARATI DANGRE, J.
1 The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, (hereinafter, referred to as “MCGM”), being aggrieved by the order passed by the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘Commission’) on 19/1/2018 in MAS No.995/2016, thereby making recommendations, in Complaint case No.995/2016 filed at the instance of respondent no.2, has approached this Court by invoking the writ jurisdiction being seeking quashing and setting aside of the said order as bad-in-law and passed exceeding its jurisdiction.
The petition also sought stay to the effect, operation implementation of the impugned order.
While issuing notice to the respondents on 22/3/2018, this Court had stayed the effect and operation of the impugned order to the extent of direction contained in paragraph no. 6B, and the order continued to remain in force.
2 We have heard learned counsel Mr. Yashodeep Deshmukh for the petitioner.
The petition has impleaded the complainant Mr.G.B.D’Souza as respondent no.1, who is represented by Advocate Manish Tomar. The respondent no.2 to the petition is the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone V Mumbai, and is represented before us by Ms.Purnima Kanthar

Lalita Kumari Vs Government of Uttar Pradesh
Rini Johar & Anr. vs. State of MP & ors.
Raghuvir Singh vs. State of Haryana
Mani Kumar Thapa vs. State of Sikkim
Nilabati Behera vs. State of Orissa
State of MP vs. Shyamsunder Trivedi & Ors.
D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal
N.C. Dhoundial vs. Union of India & Ors.
Rudul Sah vs State Of Bihar Another
United Air Travel Services vs. Union of India
Ramlila Maidan Incident, In re
Human Rights Commission's recommendations binding but judicially reviewable; cannot direct compensation without inquiry evidence proving public servant negligence causing human rights violation via r....
The Human Rights Commission’s role is purely recommendatory; it cannot issue binding directions, such as prohibiting medical practice.
The court established that municipal authorities have a statutory duty to ensure public safety by controlling stray animals, and failure to do so constitutes negligence, which can result in liability....
Negligence of Municipal Authorities in failing to control stray dogs resulted in a child's death; they are liable for compensation under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.