Disposed

Pradip Chandrakant Indulkar v. Municipal Corporation for City of Thane and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Jul 2010PIL/81/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a PIL petition seeking removal of a traffic island construction and preservation of trees. It directed the Traffic Commissioner to re-examine permission granting in light of Indian Roads Congress guidelines within one month while accepting the Corporation's assurance regarding tree protection.

What did the court decide?

The Assistant Commissioner of Police (Traffic) was directed to re-examine the permission for the traffic island considering Indian Roads Congress guidelines within one month.

Pradip Chandrakant Indulkar Vs Municipal… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

kps

¶3

I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.81/2010

¶5

Pradip Chandrakant Indulkar. ..Petitioner -Versus-

¶6

Municipal Corporation of Thane and others. ..Respondents

¶7

Ms.Gauri Godse for the Petitioners. Mr.Mandar Limaye for the Respondent No.1. Mr.R.P. Behere, AGP for the Respondents No.2 and 3/State.

¶8

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, CJ & S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.

¶9

Date : 15^th July, 2010.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

1 By this Public Interest Litigation the Petitioner who is resident of Thane city has prayed for the following directions against the Respondents:-

¶12

“(i) Respondent No.1 to forthwith remove the construction for decorative traffic island on the said road being the road opposite Minar Bungalow at Shree Nagar, Wagle Estate, Thane.

¶13

(ii) Respondent No.1 to take immediate steps for necessary repairs and maintenance of the said road being the road opposite Minar Bungalow at Shree Nagar, Wagle Estate, Thane.

¶14

¶15

(iii) Respondent No.1 to take appropriate steps for preservation of the trees being (i) Bahava, (ii) Keshiya and (iii) Vavala on the said road.

¶16

(iv) Quashing and setting aside the permission dated 15^th March, 2010 granted by Respondent No.2 for construction of traffic island on the said road.”

¶17

2 In compliance of the order dated 17^th June, 2010 of this Court, the Executive Engineer of Wagle Ward Committee of the Respondent No.1/ Corporation has filed the affidavit dated 14^th July, 2010 indicating that by letter dated 19.11.2005 the Tree Officer of the Corporation proposed that out of five trees situated on the road in question, three trees were obstructing the vehicular traffic and proposed that the said three trees be cut down. However, the Tree Authority has passed the resolution to remove only two trees out of the said five trees. It is, thus, stand of the Respondent No.1 that out of the said five trees, two trees have been removed and three trees have been preserved. Many trees have been planted by the Corporation after the said two trees were removed. The photographs annexed to the petition indicate that three trees have been preserved.

¶18

3 In respect to the Traffic Island, the Executive Engineer has stated that the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Traffic), Thane has granted permission vide letter dated 15.03.2010 for the purpose of construction of the Traffic Island mentioning that by construction of Traffic Island, the vehicular traffic in the said area will be

¶19

¶20

regulated and streamlined. It is further stated by the Executive Engineer that the existing three trees will be protected and same will not be removed for the purpose of construction of the Traffic Island. 4 The Petitioner’s grievance in this PIL is that the permission for construction of the Traffic Island has been granted in violation of the Recommended Practice for Traffic Rotaries issued by the Indian Roads Congress.

¶21

5 In view of the above grievance, we dispose of this petition after recording the above statement made by the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1/ Corporation that the said three trees will be protected and not to be removed or damaged in the course of construction of the Traffic Island and many trees have been planted after removing the said two trees. The Respondent No.2/ Assistant Commissioner of Police (Traffic), Thane shall re-examine the question of granting permission for construction of the Traffic Island in question after taking into consideration the Recommended Practices for Traffic Rotaries issued by the Indian Roads Congress which is annexed to the petition at Exhibit-M, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 6 The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶22

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶23

S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.

Pradip Chandrakant Indulkar v. Municipal Corporation for City of Thane and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradip Chandrakant Indulkar v. Municipal Corporation for City of Thane 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

Liyakat Shaikh Vs Metropolitan Commissioner and Ors.

Mrs. Shaina N. C. and 10 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 14 Ors.

Murti Upadhye Vs B.M.C. and 3 Ors.

Narendra S/O Jaggannathji Mohata and 4 Ors. Vs U.O.I. Thr. Pr. Secty., Min. of Environment and Forest and 3 Ors.

Marine Drive (Chief) Welfare Associaltion and Anr. Vs State of Maharastra and 4 Ors.

Pushkar M. Damle Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Smt. S.G.P. Barnes Vs Jairaj Pathak, the Municipal Commissioner of B.M.C. and 3 Ors.

Sanjay Sahdev Tupe and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and 9 Ors.

Mrs.Giribala Sangam Sagre Vs Mrs.Sharadha Hemant Joshi and Ors.

Rajaram Shivrudra Koshti and Anr. Vs Mahadev Dhulappa Khawashe

Devidas Madhukar Lokhande and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Maruti Mura Vagare Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dr. Pankaj P. D. Biraris and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtr and Anr.

Kishor Nandalal Pahuja Vs Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation