PIL seeking relaxation in building rules for Municipal Corporations was disposed of. The court held that such relaxation is a policy decision and not a right, refusing interference in this writ jurisdiction.
The PIL was disposed of with no costs awarded.
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) PIL No. 101 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.
Public Interest Litigation No. 101 of 2014
Anil Mohanlal Kankriya, Age : 41 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Nehru Nagar, Deopur, District : Dhule. .. Petitioner.
versus
The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Town Planning Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, & 3 others. .. Respondents.
Mr. K.C. Sant, Advocate, with Mr. V.B. Madan, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mrs. M.A. Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 3.
Mr. Amol S. Sawant, Advocate, for respondent no.4.
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & A.M. BADAR, JJ.
DATE : 15TH DECEMBER 2014
COURT'S ORDER (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) :
(2) PIL No. 101 of 2014
( A.M. BADAR ) ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE JUDGE
puranik / PIL101.14
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere by way of writ to grant relaxation in building rules or bye-laws for Municipal Corporations.
Whether relaxation from building rules or framing of new rules for a particular local body is a matter amenable to writ jurisdiction.
Anil Mohanlal Kankriya
State of Maharashtra
Secretary, Town Planning Department
4 others
B.P. Dharmadhikari
A.M. Badar
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
