2008 INSC 1715
                                    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                        Vyankappa Narayan Patki

                                                      Vs.

                                            State of Maharashtra

                                       C.A.Nos.4954-4956 of 2008

                                  (B.N. Agrawal and G.S. Singhvi JJ.)

                                                  08.08.2008

                                                  ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. The appellants, two of whom are social workers and one is a political activist, filed a writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for striking down various provisions of
Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974, Maharashtra Slum Areas
(Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, Maharashtra Regional Town
Planning Act, 1966 and Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 on the ground that the same are
violative of Articles 243G, 243N, 243ZE and 243ZF of the Constitution of India. They
further prayed for restraining the State of Maharashtra and Maharashtra State Electricity
Board from taking action in furtherance of the provisions of which constitutional validity
was challenged.

4. By the impugned order, the High Court summarily dismissed the writ petition by
observing that it is only academic and the writ petitioners do not have any personal interest in
the matter and their personal right is not affected in any manner. Review applications filed by
the petitioners were also dismissed.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the writ petition did
raise important questions of law and the High Court was not justified in summarily
dismissing the same on the grounds enumerated above. In our view, the High Court should
have disposed of the writ petition on merits.

6. Accordingly, the civil appeals are allowed, impugned orders are set aside and the matter is
remanded to the High Court to consider the writ petition afresh on merits after giving
opportunity to the respondents to file counter affidavit thereto and hearing all the parties.

1  SpotLaw