This writ petition challenged the Executive Engineer's order regarding a redevelopment proposal. The Court found the order was a detailed speaking order, found no merit in the petition, and dismissed it as the Court did not sit in appeal.
The Writ Petition 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
W.P.549/10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 549 OF 2010
Vishwanath Dattatraya Borkar ).. Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and others ).. Respondents
Mr. R.D. Bindra for the Petitioner. Ms. S.M. Dandekar, Assistant Government Pleader, for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mrs. Geeta Jogalekar for Respondent Nos.3 and 4. Mr. S.B. Pawar i/b S.K. Legal Associates for Respondent No.5. Mr. Vibhav Krishna a/w Mr. Vishal Nahar, Mr.Tejas Shah, Ms.Laxmi Mordekar i/b Juris Consillis for Respondent No.6.
CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 6TH JULY 2010
P.C.
What is challenged in this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the order dated 10th February 2010 (Exhibit “M”) passed by the Executive Engineer, (Bldg. Proposal) Eastern Suburbs-II in the office of the Deputy Chief Engineer of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation.
2
W.P.549/10
Executive Engineer (Bldg. Proposal) Eastern Suburbs of the RespondentMunicipal Corporation. The order was set aside only on the ground that although the Writ Petition was heard, it was not a speaking order. The learned Single Judge accordingly set aside the order with liberty to the Executive Engineer to pass a fresh order.
3
W.P.549/10
for the reasons given in the order the objection is rejected. For instance, one of the objections raised by the petitioner was that there was no clearance from the Coastal Regulation Zone authority for the project under reference, even though the same is affected by CRZ and hence the proposal should be revoked forthwith. The Executive Engineer has dealt with the said objection in the following terms :-
“In reply to this, E.E. (B.P.) E.S.-II informed them and also showed them the remarks/plans from the Development Plan dept., wherein the CRZ demarcation is clearly marked. The building under reference for which IOD/CC are granted is to be constructed in place of building No.30 & 31 which are well beyond this line and hence the question of the building being affected by CRZ does not arise. However, it may be stated that some buildings for which reconstruction permission is not granted yet are either partly or fully affected by the CRZ line. The approval to these buildings will only be granted after obtaining the necessary clearances from the M.C.Z.M. Authority.”
4
W.P.549/10
project is being delayed and that other members of the respondent No.5 society have not only no objection against the implementation of the project but they are all eagerly waiting for the implementation of the project.
CHIEF JUSTICE
S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the detailed speaking order of the Executive Engineer rejecting objections regarding CRZ clearance and alternative accommodation.
Vishwanath Dattatraya Borkar
The State of Maharashtra
Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation
Respondent No.6 Developer
Mohit S. Shah
S.C. Dharmadhikari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
