Disposed

Kewal Semlani v. the Commissioner of Bombay Municipal Corpn. and Anr.

Bombay HC17 Oct 2007SMWP/3/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of PILs filed by citizens complaining about road conditions and tolls in Mumbai. The Court refused to extend the monitoring committee's term, directing authorities to maintain roads effectively instead.

What did the court decide?

Directs the Municipal Commissioner to take stringent measures to maintain roads in good condition round the year; instructs MMRDA and MMRDC to improve road construction.

Kewal Semlani Vs the Commissioner of Bombay… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

-:1:-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

P.I.L. SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION NO. 8 OF 2005

¶4

Dr. Sandip Rane. ... Petitioner. V/s. The Commissioner of Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors. ... Respondents. Ms. Deepali Khare i/b. Shiralkar & Co. for the Petitioner. Mr. N.S. Dhumal for Respondent No.3. Mr. K.K. Singhavi, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Shobha Ajeet Kumar and Ms. P.A. Purandare for the Respondent/B.M.C. Mr. N.P. Pandit, A.G.P. for the Respondent/State.

¶5

WITH

¶6

P.I.L. SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION NO. 3 OF 2005

¶7

Kewal Semlani. ... Petitioner. V/s. The Commissioner of Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. Kewal Semlani, Petitioner-in-person. Mr. P.P. Chawan i/b. Little & Co. for Respondent No.11. Mr. Umesh Shetty a/w. Ms. Rejuta Joshi i/b. Mulla & Mulla for Respondent No.5. Mr. K.K. Singhavi, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Shobha Ajeet Kumar and Ms. P.A. Purandare for the Respondent/B.M.C. Mr. N.P. Pandit, A.G.P. for the Respondent/State. WITH P.I.L. WRIT PETITION NO.259 OF 2005 Janhit Manch & Ors. ... Petitioners. V/s. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation & Ors. ... Respondents.

¶8

-:2:-

¶9

Ms. Bhagwanji Rayani, Petitioner-in-person. Mr. K.K. Singhavi, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Shobha Ajeet Kumar and Ms. P.A. Purandare for the Respondent/B.M.C. Mr. N.P. Pandip, A.G.P. for the Respondent/State.

¶10

CORAM : J.N. PATEL AND A.A. SAYED,JJ.

¶11

DATE : 17TH OCTOBER, 2007.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶14

2.	On the basis	of the letter written by Dr.
Sandip	Rane, this	Court took Suo Motu co	gnizance	of
the	news item in	the year 2005 published	in	the
"Indian	Express" un	der the caption "as	road	tolls
shoot	up, pot-holes	take their toll"	and	issued
notices	to all the	concerned parties. This	Court	also
appointed	a commi	ttee of vigilant citizens		including
one	Advocate of this	Court. The issue was	joined	by
Dr.	Sandip Rane,	Mr. Kewal Semlani and	Janhit	Manch
&	Others. Thereaf	ter, in response to	the	issues
raised	in the p	etition relating to condition	s of	road
in	the city of	Mumbai, various directions	have	been
issued	and the	respondent-corporation and	M	.M.R.D.A.
and	other concer	ned authorities have taken	steps	to
improve	the conditions	of roads. The com	mittee	also
submitted	its report	alongwith the suggestion	s	which

¶15

-:3:-

¶16

were taken up for consideration and follow up action

¶17

was taken.

¶18

3.		It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner
that	this	Court should extend the	term of	the
committee		and continue to monitor the	status of	roads
within	the	Municipal Corporation of	Greater	Mumbai,
though	the	petition has already been	disposed of	by
this	Court	by its order dated 23rd	November 2006	with
a	liberty	to the parties to revive the	same and	that
is	how	the petition is kept alive.	For the	present,
we	find	that the Municipal Corpora	tion has	taken
effective		measures and also appointed	consultant	to
improve	the	roads in Mumbai and	have taken	into
consideratio	n	the recommendations	of	Standing
Technical		Advisory Committee and	the C	ommittee
constituted	by	this court, that the	Standing	Technical
Advisory	C	ommittee has submitted its	report.	The
Court	ap	preciates the service rendered	by the	members
of th	e	Committee in highlighting the	problems	suffered

¶19

due to bad and unkept roads and bringing some relief

¶20

to the citizens of Mumbai.

¶21

Lack of basic civic amenities and bad road conditions have become order of the day. This is a

¶22

-:4:-

¶23

never	ending story	and common to all local	statutory
bodies	and public	works department who are re	sponsible
and	accountable	for construction, upkeep	and
maintenance	of ro	ads and with the on set of	monsoon
every	year, the	problem gets multiplied. There	are
incidences	quoted	before us where the roads do	not
exist	and toll	is collected, which comes under	the
jurisdiction	of M.M.R.D	.A., M.S.R.D.C. and P.W.D.	We
therefore,	dispose of	these petitions as this Cour	t is
of	the view that	it will not be able to con	tinuously
monitor	constructions	and maintenance of the	roads
within	or beyond	the Municipal limits of	Greater
Mumbai	indefinitely.	This Court is having	atleast
half	a dozen	public interest litigations filed by	the
citizens	on the	issue of bad road conditions in	other
Municipal	Corporations	like Thane, Pune and so on	and

¶24

those petitions are being pursued in accordance with

¶25

law.

¶26

5.		The	request	made on	behalf of the petitioner
that	the	term	of	the	committee should be	extended	by
nominating		pet	itioners		on the committee,	accordi	ng to
us,	is	not	nec	essary.	We, therefore,	finally	dispose
of	these	petit	ions	with	a direction to	the	Municipal
Commission	er,		Munic	ipal	Corporation of	Greater	Mumbai

¶27

-:5:-

¶28

that	he	wou	ld	tak	e stringe	nt	measures		to maintain
roads	in	the	city	of	Mumbai	in	good		conditions all
round	the	year	and	to	the	autho	rities	i.e.	M.M.R.D.A.
and	M.S.R	.D.C.	w	ho	are entr	usted	with	the	work of

¶29

construction of roads within the municipal limits, in

¶30

their respective jurisdiction.

¶31

6.		As we h	ave alre	ady observed th	at this problem
is	never	ending,	citi	zens are	at lib	erty to	app	roach
this	Court	in	case	deficiency	is	noticed	of	a
particular		road	in	question	and	the	conc	erned
officials,	in	charge	of	the	area and	the	Mun	icipal
Commissi	oner	can	be	issued	a show	cause	notice	to
explain	as	to	why	appropriate	action	should	not	be
taken	against	him	for	his failur	e to	keep the	roads	in

¶32

good working conditions that would keep the

¶33

authorities in check.

¶34

With these observations,

Petitions are

disposed of.

J.N. PATEL, J.

A.A. SAYED, J.

Kewal Semlani v. the Commissioner of Bombay Municipal Corpn. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kewal Semlani v. the Commissioner of Bombay Municipal Corpn. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shibibai @ Shivabai Okana Mothi and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Balgounda Jingonda Patil Vs Sudhir Anna Patil (Decd.) by Heirs

Ujwala Tushar Sainkar Vs Tushar Damodhar Sainkar

Yusuf Khan Ghouse Khan Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mali Vishwas Namdeo Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Janhit Manch and Ors. Vs Brihanmumbai Municipa Corpn. and Ors.