Allowed

Leelavati Tukaram Shinde and Ors. v. Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Jun 2007WP/2202/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Pune Municipal Corporation's policy of not granting new stall licenses on footpaths and roads. The High Court upheld the Corporation's decision to stop licenses and directed that the policy cannot be altered without court approval.

What did the court decide?

Rule discharged; Corporation directed that policy changes may not be implemented without prior court order.

Leelavati Tukaram Shinde and Ors. Vs Pune… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

GPN-J.332-ARCHB-8.94-1310500-ALA4 Spl-H.C.A.S.C.D.79e

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 2202 OF 2007

¶4

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶5

Court’s or Judge’s orders

¶6

Mr. A.V. Anturkar with Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh for Petitioner.

¶7

Mr. Vijay Mujumdar for Respondents.

¶8

CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & R.M. SAVANT,JJ.

¶9

DATED : JUNE 14, 2007

¶10

P.C.

¶11

. Rule. Heard forthwith.

¶12

.	On 27.4.2007 we	had	directed	the
Municipal	Commissioner, Pune		to	file
affidavit	setting out whether	it	is	policy
of th	e Corporation not to	grant	any	new
structure	on the foot path	and	whether	at
least	from 1.1.2007, they	had	granted	any
new	permissions. Pursuant	to	that,	an
affidavit	dated 2.6.2007 has	been	filed	by
Mr.Mohan	Attani,	Incharge		Municipal

¶13

Commissioner. The relevant portion of the

¶14

said affidavit in Para 2 reads as under :

¶15

"I say that considering increasing traffic problems in Pune City, PMC has stopped granting new licenses for closed

¶16

stalls/Carts	on	the roads and foot-paths
in PUne	City an	d it is policy of PMC not
to grant	any	licenses for any new
structures	like	closed stalls/carts on
roads/footpaths	.	As stated in previous
affidavit	filed	on behalf of PMC, I say
that	conside	ring increasing population
and	aggravated	traffic problems in Pune
City,	PMC	decided to grant pitch
licenses	instead	of closed stall
licenses	to	eligible Cobblers vide
Resolution	dt.	22/5/2002. I further
say that	the	General Body of PMC vide
Resolution	No.	17 dt. 27./4/2005 and
Resolution	No.	604 dt. 23/3/2006, has
confirmed	the	earlier policy decision
that ins	tead	of closed stalls pitch
licenses	be	granted to eligible
Cobblers."

¶17

.	behalf of	the	Pet	itioner	the	learned
counsel	states	that		consi	dering	the
Government	G.R.	at		the	highest	the
respondent	Corporation		could	have	taken	a

¶18

decision on case to case basis and not in general.

¶19

. The	Policy	of	the	Gover	nment	as	reflected
in the	scheme	of	5.6.2000	in	the	matter	of

¶20

setting up of stalls on the road side

¶21

provides amongst others as under :

¶22

(1) No licences be given on a road which is

¶23

24 mtrs. in width.

¶24

(2) On 9 to 20 mtrs. wide road, license to be given in such a matter that it could not cause obstruction to the traffic and public.

¶25

.	From the	affidavit of Mohan	Attani, it is
clear	that	the decision by the	Corporation
not	to grant	any new licence is	on account
of	increasing	population an	d aggravated
traffic	proble	ms. The issue is	not whether
the	matter	must be considered on	case to
case	basis	but whether c	onsidering the
overall	devel	opment of the	city, the
Corporati	on cou	ld have taken	a general
policy.	We	have no doubt	that the
Corporati	on has	such power whereby	if in the
opinion	of	the Corporation , on	account of
the	increased	population and	increased
traffic,	there	are difficulties	to generally
take	a d	ecision not to allow	any further
licences	by w	ay of stalls on	foot paths/road
side.	We	have therefore, no	hesitation in

¶26

rejecting the said contention raised by the Petitioner.

¶27

. While rejecting the contention, we must

¶28

however, point out that we have accepted the statement made on affidavit on behalf of the Pune Municipal Corporation through their incharge Municipal Commissioner that there is increase in population and traffic problems have been aggravated. It is therefore, clear from the said affidavit that the P.M.C. has stopped granting any stall licenses and will hereinafter not grant any new licence in terms of what has been set out in the affidavit. The relevant portion of the said affidavit has been reproduced in the earlier part of our order. If the Corporation makes any change in its policy of allowing stalls on roadside that will not be implemented without first moving this court and this court passing an appropriate order. This direction is being issued in view of the affidavit filed y the Respondent Corporation. The Corporation has made it clear that they have no difficulties

¶29

in granting pitch licences to those who are eligible.

¶30

disposed of. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.

¶31

(R.M.SAVANT,J.)

¶32

(F.I. REBELLO,J.)

Leelavati Tukaram Shinde and Ors. v. Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Leelavati Tukaram Shinde and Ors. v. Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravindra Sambhaji Jadhav Vs Union of India and Ors.

Darshana Kamalakar Chavan and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shashank Madhukar Tilekar Vs the Divisional Commissioner, Pune and Anr.

Jeevaraj Sadashiv Takalikar Vs Head Master - Jeevan Vikas Prashala and Ors.

Khandu Namdev More Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Laxmi Education and Social Society Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.