The Court, in this Public Interest Litigation challenging a Municipal Corporation's approval for erecting a statue, held that no interference was called for after considering the totality of facts and circumstances. The suit for the stay was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.5 OF 2005
Dinesh Tukaram Pachkude
V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
: Petitioner
: Respondents
Mr.Pramod N. Patil for the petitioner. Mr.R. S. Apte for respondent No.2.
CORAM : DALVEER BHANDARI, C.J. & S.A. BOBDE, J.
DATE : FEBRUARY 22, 2005.
P.C. :
reply-affidavit has been filed, but the same is not on record. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 to ensure that reply-affidavit is placed on record.
has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2. It appears that a small statue of late Anand Dighe has already been erected in the site allotted for that purpose. It appears to have been done after obtaining permission from the concerned authority. The learned
2
counsel for respondent No.2 states that respondent no.2 has received no objection from the concerned authorities. The Executive Engineer issued a communication to the concerned police station on 12.12.2001. The Government granted permission by its communication dated 8.1.2002 on certain terms and conditions such as inviting objections and opinions by publishing an advertisement regarding the light and security arrangements of the statue and that clay model of the statue should be got approved from the the Directorate of Art. It is also incorporated in the reply that an advertisement was published in the newspaper on 7.5.2002 by the Thane Municipal Corporation inviting objections and suggestions on or before 15.5.2002. It is also mentioned that no objection was received and, hence, the Thane Municipal Corporation granted permission on certain terms and conditions. It is also mentioned that the Directorate of Art, Government of Maharashtra, also accorded approval by its communication dated 9.9.2004. It is also mentioned in the reply that the General Body has granted sanction in its Resolution No.328 dated 19.9.2001 for erection of the said statue and for beautification.
3
3. On considering the totality of the facts and
circumstances, the Thane Municipal Corporation has granted final approval and handed over possession of the site on the following conditions:-
small statue on a small area in a chowk does not amount to change of user as per the provisions of the M. R. T. P. Act. It is also mentioned that the high mast lamp is only shifted for its optimum use and not for any other purpose.
4
5. In view of the afore-mentioned averments, in our considered
opinion, no interference is called for in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
S.A. BOBDE, J.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court should intervene under Article 226 regarding the erection of a statue after municipal approval.
Whether erecting a small statue on a limited area in a chowk amounts to a change of user under MRTP Act.
Whether the payments made by the General Body for beautification justify the Civil Court's stay or interference.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dinesh Tukaram Pachkude
The State of Maharashtra
Dalveer Bhandari
S.A. Bobde
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
