Disposed

Prashant Motiram Worlikar and Anr. v. Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra and 4 Others.

Bombay HC17 Sept 2014PIL/109/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought preservation of the 'Mehrangir' bungalow. The Court noted Central and State Governments were already examining its heritage status. Finding the PIL's purpose was achieved, the Court disposed of the petition without prejudice to the Government proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Public Interest Litigation was disposed of.

Prashant Motiram Worlikar and Anr. Vs Chief Secretary… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2014)

skc

PIL-L-68-14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (L) NO. 68 OF 2014

¶7

Shri Prashant Motiram Worlikar & Anr. .. Petitioners versus Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶8

Mr. N. V. Walawalkar – Senior Advocate with Mr. Suresh Sabrad for Petitioners.

¶9

Ms Geeta Shastry – Additional Government Pleader for Respondent - State.

¶10

Ms. T. H. Puranik – for Respondent – MCGM.

¶11

Mr. I. M. Chagla – Senior Advocate, Mr. Janak Dwarkadas – Senior Advocate, Mr. R. I. Chagla, Mr. B. H. Antia and Mr. H. N. Vakil i/b. Mulla & Mulla & C. B. & C. for Respondent No. 4 – NCPA.

¶12

Mr. Anil C. Singh – ASG with Mr. R. V. Desai – Senior Advocate with Mr. Mohamedali M. Chunawala, Mr. R. B. Pardesi, Mr. Ravindra Lokhande Mr. H. P. Chaturvedi and Mr. A. A. Ansari for Respondent No. 5 – Union of India

¶13

Mr. Aspi Chinoy – Senior Advocate with Mr. D. D. Madon – Senior Advocate and Mr. R.A.K. Nizam-es-Sani i/b. Maneksha & Sethna for Respondent Nos. 6 to 8 (Auction Purchasers)

¶14

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C. J. & M. S. SONAK, J. DATE : 17 September 2014

¶15

P. C :

¶16

1] The petitioner no. 1 is the President of Atomic Energy Workers' & Staff Union, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, and the petitioner no. 2 is the President of National Forum for Aided

1 of 7

2 PIL-L-68-14

skc

Institutions Employees (Department of Atomic Energy). By this public interest litigation, the petitioners urge that the State of Maharashtra and/or the Union of India take immediate steps to preserve the residential bungalow 'Mehrangir' of the renowned Scientist Dr. Homi Jehangir Bhabha, including by way of its declaration as a 'protected monument' or a 'heritage structure'.

¶21

2] The cause of action pleaded for institution of the public interest litigation was the notice inviting tender dated 13 March 2014 issued by the National Centre for Performing Arts (NCPA) for the sale of 'Mehrangir' on the basis that the same had been bequeathed in its favour by Jamshed Bhabha, the brother of Dr. Homi Bhabha.

¶22

3] Dr. Homi Jehangir Bhabha, the first Chairman of Atomic Energy Commission of India, was one of the co-owners of the building ' Mehrangir', a name derived from the names of his parents ' Meherbai ' and ' Jehangir'. After death of Dr. Homi Jehangir Bhabha in 1966, his brother Jamshed Jehangir Bhabha was the sole owner of the property. Before his death in 2007, Jamshed Jehangir Bhabha had executed Will on 4 September 1990 with subsequent codicils, inter alia bequeathing his estate and effects unto his Trustees upon Trust to sell, call in and convert into money the same, to be utilized in the form of a commemorative capital donation to the National Centre for the Performing Arts (NCPA) on the condition that a suitable segment thereof shall bear the name ' Jamshed Bhabha'.

2 of 7

skc

PIL-L-68-14

4] Accordingly, the Trustees obtained Letters of Administration for the said property and this Court granted Letters of Administration in favour of respondent No.4 Trust on 19 August 2013. Pursuant to the said grant, respondent No.4 executed a Deed of Transfer in its own favour and got it registered with the office of Sub-Registrar Assurances, Mumbai. Pursuant to the wishes expressed in the aforesaid Will, respondent No.4 put up that property in auction by issuing public advertisement on 13 March 2014. The auction was to be held on 18 June 2014 and the present Public Interest Litigation (PIL) came to be filed on 13 June 2014.

¶28

5] On 17 June 2014, notice was issued to the respondents. In response, the Chairman of NCPA filed affidavit in reply dated 23 June 2014, stating inter alia as under :

¶29

(i) The belongings of the late Dr. Homi J. Bhabha, which included important scientific papers, photographs, correspondence, work desk and chair were handed over to the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR) in November 2013. TIFR has acknowledged that they have received the aforesaid belongings of the late Dr. Homi J. Bhabha, through an undertaking by way of an Affidavit given by the then Director of TIFR along with a letter addressed to the Respondent No.4;

¶30

(ii) At the auction of the property on 18 June 2014, the highest bid of Rs.372 Crores was received from respondent Nos. 6 to 8, viz., Ms Smita G. Crishna, Ms. Freyan V. Crishna and Ms Nyrika V. Crishna respectively. (10% of the amount is deposited)

3 of 7

skc

PIL-L-68-14

6] On 23 June 2014, in pursuance of chamber summons no. 54 of 2014, Union of India was impleaded as a party respondent upon its own request. The matter was deferred to enable the State of Maharashtra and Union of India to respond to the reliefs prayed for in the petition. On 8 July 2014, at the request of both State as well as Union Governments, the matter was deferred to 25 August 2014.

¶36

7] At the hearing of 25 August 2014, we recorded stand taken by the Government of India in their affidavit dated 22 August 2014 that as per the Ancient Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, the Central Government can declare any structure of historical importance which has been in existence for not less than 100 years as National Monuments. However, the structure “Mehrangir” does not qualify to fall within this category, as it has not been in existence for 100 years.

¶37

8] Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners intend to make a representation to the Central Government to reconsider the above view as according to the petitioners the building in question has been in existence for more than 100 years.

¶38

9] We do not express any opinion on the above contention and it will be open to the petitioners to make such a representation as indicated above.

4 of 7

skc

PIL-L-68-14

10] As far as the State of Maharashtra is concerned, affidavit in reply dated 15 September 2014 has been filed by the Joint Secretary, Urban Development Department, indicating that for the purpose of exploring the feasibility of listing the aforesaid building as a historical structure under Regulation 67 of the Development Control Regulation for Greater Mumbai, 1991 the Government had called for the remarks and opinion of respondent no. 3 Mumbai Heritage Conservation Committee. The Committee by letter dated 20 August 2014 has informed the State Government that the above building does not warrant listing as a heritage structure on account of its association with Dr. Homi Bhabha. The copy of the Committee's letter dated 20 August 2014 has been annexed to the affidavit in reply along with a note of the Mumbai Heritage Conservation Committee giving detailed reasons for taking the above view. The affidavit however further states that the State Government has sought the views of the Municipal Commissioner of Greater Mumbai on the aforesaid letter of the Mumbai Heritage Conservation Committee and that the State Government will be taking decision regarding listing the said bungalow as a heritage structure after receiving the remarks of the Municipal Commissioner. It is clear that the matter is pending before the State Government.

¶44

11] Learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 and respondent nos. 6 to 8 submit that since the petitioners have already achieved the purpose of filing this PIL by activating the Central Government

5 of 7

skc 6

PIL-L-68-14

as well as the State Government into considering the issue raised by them, this PIL may be disposed of as pendency of the PIL creates uncertainties about the transaction of the sale of the bungalow to respondent nos. 6 to 8. The respondent No. 4 – NCPA has so far received only 10% of the sale consideration, another 40% is lying in escrow account and the remaining 50% is to be received on execution of the Conveyance. It is submitted that pendency of this PIL with uncertainties will delay execution of Conveyance by respondent no. 4 Trust in favour of respondent nos. 6 to 8 for which respondent no. 4 Trust is awaiting the decision of the Charity Commissioner on the application of the Trust under Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950.

¶49

12] Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are inclined to accept the submissions made on behalf of respondent nos. 4 and respondent nos. 6 to 8 that the Central Government has looked into and the State Government has already been looking into the issue whether the bungalow “Mehrangir” should be declared as a National Monument under the Central Act or as a Heritage Structure under the Development Control Regulations of Greater Mumbai. The Central Government has already taken a decision. Ultimately the purpose of the public interest litigation was to activate the State and Central Authorities into taking steps. Now, that the Authorities are alive to the situation, no useful purpose will be served by keeping this public interest litigation pending any further. We are also of the view that the disposal of this public interest litigation will not in any manner prejudice the

6 of 7

skc

PIL-L-68-14

consideration of the issue by the State Government as the learned counsel for respondent no. 4 and respondent nos. 6 to 8 state that for a period of six months respondent no. 4 or respondent nos. 6 to 8 do not propose to demolish the building nor they propose to make any changes in the bungalow, except to make it suitable for the purpose of residence, as the bungalow is not in use after death of Jamshed Bhabha in the year 2007.

¶55

13] Therefore, upon record of the aforesaid, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this PIL.

¶56

14] PIL is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶57

( CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶58

(M. S. SONAK, J.)

¶59

Chandka

¶60

7 of 7

Prashant Motiram Worlikar and Anr. v. Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra and 4 Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Motiram Worlikar and Anr. v. Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra and 4 Others.

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

Annay Bhrashtachar Nivaran Janhit Samiti, Ahmednagar Vs the Union of India and Another

Mohanlal Motilal Bhandari Vs Election Commissioner of India, New Delhi and Ors.

Shri. Ajit Sakharam Kandar and Anr. Vs the States of Maharashtra and Ors.

Aurangabad Bus Owners and Travel Agents Association and Others Vs the Union of India and Others

Shri. Pramod Sahebrao Arsul Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Purushottam Salvi Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development and Ors.

Sevasankalp Jankalyan Pratishthan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Shri. Dilip D. Amane and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Co-Operation Marketing and Textile and Ors.

Jetwan Chandivali S.R.A. Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Asif Ali Siddiquie Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Others

M/S. Saumya Mining Ltd. and Anr. Vs L and T Finance Limited and 2 Ors.

Smt. Fergi Farookh Nargoliwalla and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Revenue and Ors.

Mr. Nasir Hussain Vs the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-Op. Soieties and Ors.

Shri. Jaynath Narayan Kate Vs Shri. Ramesh Nanasaheb Waghere and Ors.