Disposed

Pradeep Chandrakant Indulkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Aug 2013PIL/92/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL, the petitioner sought construction of roads in Thane. The Division Bench dismissed a request to monitor all road construction but directed expeditious processing of forest and CRZ permissions and requested a meeting to resolve the non-completion of a specific Mumbai-Thane road link.

What did the court decide?

Directions for expeditious processing of forest and CRZ permissions and a request to convene a meeting regarding a specific road link.

Pradeep Chandrakant Indulkar Vs the State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 of 3 PIL.92.2010

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.92 OF 2010

¶4

Pradip Chandrakant Indulkar Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and others Respondents

¶5

Respondents

¶6

Mr.M.J.Jamdar for Petitioner. Mr.Nitin Deshpande, AGP for State. Mr.R.S.Apte, Sr.Advocate with Mandar Limaye for Respondent no.4.

¶7

CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND S.C.GUPTE, JJ.

¶8

DATE : 2 August 2013

¶9

PC :

¶10

In these proceedings which have been filed in the public interest, the petitioner seeks the issuance of a mandamus to the Respondents to construct and develop as many as nineteen roads in accordance with the sanctioned development plan for Thane. Several affidavits have been filed during the pendency of these proceedings. In an affidavit dated 7 February 2013, the City Engineer has indicated the individual status in respect of the completion of each of the said roads. By an order dated 8 March 2013, certain directions were issued by the Division Bench. The Division Bench observed that where the roads which were required to be constructed are in the forest area or where the proposed road is affected by the CRZ notification, an application shall be made by the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation to the competent authority, if such an

¶11

2 of 3 PIL.92.2010

¶12

application was not already made. Moreover, it appeared that there is a small patch of road connecting Mumbai and Thane referred to in prayer clause (b) where the Secretary in the Urban Development Department was directed to explore the possibility of issuing a direction to both the Thane and Mumbai Municipal Corporations to complete the project on a priority basis.

¶13

In pursuance of the order, an affidavit has been filed on 8 April 2013 stating that the Municipal Corporation has made an application to the Chief Conservator of Forest on 8 March 2013 and to the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority on 30 March 2013 for permission.

¶14

We do not consider it appropriate to keep this petition pending any further. Apart from issuing general directions, it would not be either appropriate or proper for the Court to enlarge the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to monitor the construction of all the roads or a large number of roads in the sanctioned development plan. That is evidently a matter which lies in the domain of the planning authorities or the competent authority, as the case may be. Since the Municipal Corporation has now applied for permission, where it was required either of the Chief Conservator of Forest or the Coastal Zone Management Authority, we direct that those applications shall be processed in accordance with law expeditiously. As regards the earlier directions which were issued to the Urban Development Department, we would request the Principal Secretary in the Urban Development Department to look into the grievance

¶15

3 of 3 PIL.92.2010

¶16

raised in regard to the non completion of a small patch of road connecting the cities of Mumbai and Thane. If co-ordinated action is required of the Municipal Corporations of the city of Mumbai and Thane, the Principal Secretary in the Urban Development Development shall convenw a meeting at the appropriate level to resolve the issues on an expeditious basis to obviate any hardship to the users particularly resulting from traffic congestion.

¶17

We accordingly dispose of the petition. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

(DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.)

¶19

(S.C.GUPTE, J.)

¶20

MST

Pradeep Chandrakant Indulkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Chandrakant Indulkar v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Shivaji Sonoba Auti and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vishwanath Ganpatrao Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mohd. Abdul Shafique S/O Mohd Ziya and 2 Oth. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Ministry of Revenue Department, through Its Secretary and 2

Sanjay Bhaskarrao Kale and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Mahadeo Ramkishan Andhale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Nivruti Barku Bahikar and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Subhash Shivram Sawant and Anr. Vs Union of India and 6 Ors.

Hanumant Vishwas Tupe Vs Serum Bio-Pharma Park, Serum Institute of India Ltd. and Ors.

Khalapur Taluka Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, through Shri. B. N. Deshmukh and Anr. Vs All India Council for Technical Education and Ors.

Mr. Vijay J. Pawar and Ors. Vs All India Council for Technical Education (a.I.C.T.E.), through the Director and Ors.

Mr. Vilas Babaji Sawant Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Indian Chamber of Agriculture Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Jugal Shriniwas Rathi and Anr. Vs Pune Mahanagar Parivahan Mahamandal Limited and Ors.

Punam Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs Pratap Issardas Bhatia and Ors.