Disposed

Dinesh D. Parmar v. Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Aug 2010PIL/134/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A PIL petition regarding Solid Waste Management before the Bombay High Court. The court directed the petitioner to file proceedings under Section 451 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 against the corporation's resolution and restrained implementation of that resolution pending the State Government's decision.

What did the court decide?

Directing the petitioner to file proceedings under Section 451 of the BPMC Act within three weeks and restraining the corporation from implementing the resolution pending the State Government's decisi

Dinesh D. Parmar Vs Mira Bhayander Municipal… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2010)

PIL.134/2010

acd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 134 OF 2010

¶6

Mr Dinesh D. Parmar

¶7

...Petitioner.

¶8

Vs. Mira- Bhayander Municipal Corporation & Ors.

¶9

...Respondents.

¶10

Mr. V.A. Thorat, Sr. Counsel with Santosh D. Patil for the Petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Mandar Limaye, for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. R.P. Behare, Additional G.P. for Respondent Nos.3 and 5.

¶12

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH C.J. AND S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 12^th AUGUST, 2010.

¶13

P.C.

¶14

1] In this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner claiming to be a social worker has prayed for direction to the Mira- Bhayander Municipal Corporation to drop the proceedings of acquisition of alternative site and further starting the Solid Waste Management project at village Varsova, District-Thane.

¶15

2] Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to raise various contentions. However, the learned counsel for the municipal corporation states that the respondent-corporation has already passed a Resolution on 29.6.2010 for shifting Solid Waste Management plant.

¶16

PIL.134/2010

¶17

¶18

3] Learned counsel for the respondent-corporation submits that appeal lies against the resolution of the municipal corporation and therefore, the present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India may not be entertained.

¶19

4] Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though appeal may be maintainable, decision on that appeal usually takes longer time and till it is disposed of, if respondent-corporation proceeds to acquire alternate land belonging to a private party, it will have to be paid compensation of Rs.100 Crores or moreand the present site is made available for which rent of only Rs.1/- per month is being paid to the Collector.

¶20

5] Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2, the learned AGP for respondent nos.3 and 5, and having considered the nature of the controversy sought to be raised in this petition, this appears to be a case where the petitioner ought to move the State Government by filing proceeding under section 451 Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (BPMC, Act) against the aforesaid Resolution dated 29.6.2010 of the respondent-corporation. If such proceedings are filed within three weeks from today, the State shall entertain the same on merits after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, municipal corporation, petitioner in PIL No.231 of 2009, and the State Pollution Control Board. The State shall take decision in the proceeding within three months from the date of filing of such proceeding. The Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶21

PIL.134/2010

¶22

¶23

6] Having regard to the fact that at present Solid Waste Management Plant is already functional and that implementation of the Resolution dated 29.6.2010 of the corporation is likely to result into the payment of substantial amount to a private party, we direct that till the State Government takes decision in the proceedings filed under BPMC Act, the respondent-corporation shall not implement the Resolution dated 29.6.2010.

¶24

7] However, it is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy and all contentions of parties are kept open.

¶25

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶26

S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

Dinesh D. Parmar v. Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh D. Parmar v. Mira Bhayander 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

Vilas Kedari Nikam Vs Rajnikant Appaji Shinde and Ors.

Santosh Daundkar Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Bhrashtachar Nirmulan Sanghtana and 1 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Sandeep Sharadchandra Thakur Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Yogesh Subhash Kakade Vs Dipti Ashok Chavdhari and Ors.

Avinash Ganpatrao Chavan Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rajendra Thacker Vs Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission and 3 Ors.

Avinash Ganpatrao Chavan Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Manisha Sanjay Waskar Vs Anil @ Bajirao Balaso Dhavan(Panari) and Ors.

Junot Chagas Pereira and Ors. Vs Omprakash Navani and Ors.

Swaran S. Chawla Vs Mukesh S. Chawla

Kamal Gulab Mirchandani and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shashikant Pandurang Patil Vs Shri. Balwant Shankar Patil and Others

State of Maharashtra through the Urban Development Department Mantralaya Mumbai and Ors. Vs Adi Dara Patel and Ors.