The Bombay High Court dismissed a PIL seeking an enquiry into the legality of Pagoda construction on C.T.S. numbers in Gorai. The court noted this issue was previously raised and decided by the MCZMA, finding no reason to entertain the petition fresh. Since no rejoinder was filed, the petition was dismissed entirely.
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.
pil-35-2009.sxw
gopi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.35 OF 2009
Mr. Edwin Britto ...Petitioner
Versus 1.The Union of India, Through the Director, Ministry of Environment & Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. Avinash Patil i/b. Amit Sale for the petitioner. Ms. Jyotsana Pandhi for respondent No.1. Mr. Prakash Shah i/b. P.DS & Associates for respondent No.6. Mr.Shi;pan Gaonkar, Parag Sharma, Nikhil Davare i/b.Udwadia Udeshi Argus for respondent No.7.
Mr. J.S.Saluja,AGP for State-respondent Nos.4 & 5.
CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 05 March 2013
P .C.
In this petition, purporting to be Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the Government of India, Ministry of Environment & Forest and Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA) to hold an enquiry in respect of the legality of construction on C.T.S. No0.1917, 1923, 1925 and 1940 of village Gorai, District Thane. The petition was filed in 2009, but the petitioner has not referred to the fact that this very issue was raised in Writ Petition No.2227 of 1999 and this Court directed that petitioner to approach the MCZMA. That petitioner had accordingly approached the MCZMA and by order dated 29 May 2004, the MCZMA held that the construction of Pagoda was
1 of 2
pil-35-2009.sxw
gopi
in accordance with the provisions of the CRZ Notification. An affidavit has been filed by R.K. Agarwal, the Authorized Signatory of Respondent No.6-Global Vipashana Foundation as far back as on 16 November, 2010. The order dated 29 May 2004 of the MCZMA has been produced with the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent No.6-Global Vipashana Foundation which had constructed the Pagoda. The petitioner has not filed any rejoinder. We, therefore, see no reason to entertain this petition. The Public Interest Litigation is, therefore, dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
ANOOP V. MOHTA , J .
2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether this petition should be entertained when the matter was previously disposed of by the MCZMA in a writ petition.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Edwin Britto
Union of India
Director, Ministry of Environment
Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority
Global Vipashana Foundation
MOHIT S. SHAH
ANOOP V. MOHTA
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
