Dismissed

Shri. Chandrakant Keshav Palav v. the State of Maharashtra, through Sub Divisional Officer and Anr.

Bombay HC26 Sept 2014PIL/111/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In PIL No. 111 of 2014, the High Court of Bombay dismissed the petitioner's grievance against the road widening project in Kajupada. The court held that the proposal need not be stopped merely because other roads require attention, and noted that eligible residents were being rehabilitated.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of on the terms that the petitioner may make a representation to authorities regarding other roads, with a reply required within one month.

Shri. Chandrakant Keshav Palav Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2014)

pil-111.14

pmw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.111 OF 2014

¶6

Shri Chandrakant Keshav Palav … Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and Anr. … Respondents

¶9

Mr. Chandrakant Keshav Palav, Petitioner in person.

¶10

Mr. S.N. Patil, AGP, for the Respondent No.1.

¶11

Ms. K.R. Punjabi, for Respondent No.2.

¶12

CORAM : A.S. OKA & G.S. KULKARNI, JJ.

¶13

DATE : 26^th SEPTEMBER, 2014

¶14

P.C.

¶15

. We have heard the Petitioner appearing in person. The

¶16

grievance made in the Petition is as regards the proposal for widening of Kajupada Pipeline road. Today, he invited attention of the Court to the averments made in paragraph Nos.3 to 7 of the Petition. He has set out the instances of different roads in paragraph Nos.3 to 7 of the Petition. He has pointed out that the encroachments have been made on the said roads which are set out in paragraph Nos.3 to 7 of the Petition. His submission is that neither the Municipal Authorities nor

¶17

1 of 4

¶18

2 pil-111.14

¶19

the Police Authorities are taking any steps to remove the encroachments on the said roads and to widen the said roads and only one road is deliberately chosen for road widening.

¶20

We have perused the averments made in the Petition and the annexures to the Petition. As far as those who are affected by widening of Kajupada Pipeline road are concerned, Exhibit 'D' to the Petition shows that rehabilitation of those who are eligible is being made by the Municipal Corporation as per the Kurar Pattern Guidelines. That is precisely the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation.

¶21

The contention of the Petitioner appearing in person is that as there are other roads which are required to be widened and as no steps are being taken as regards the said roads, the proposal for widening of Kajupada Pipeline road should be dropped. We are unable to accede to the said submission. Only because action is not taken in respect of some other roads, the action of road widening of Kajupada Pipeline road cannot be stopped especially when all affected persons who are eligible are being rehabilitated by following Kurar Pattern Guidelines.

¶22

2 of 4

¶23

3 pil-111.14

¶24

The main grievance of the Petitioner seems to be as regards the roads which are set out in paragraph Nos.3 to 7 of the Petition. We have perused the annexures to the Petition. The only representation made by the Petitioner to the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation on 21st September, 2013 makes a grievance only about widening of Kajupada Pipeline, Kurla road. The Municipal Corporation has replied by pointing out that as per the directions issued by this Court, the work of road widening has been undertaken.

¶25

If grievances are made by the Petitioner as regards the roads which are set out in paragraph Nos.3 to 7 of the Petition, the Municipal Authorities as well as the Police Authorities will have to look into it and take remedial steps. However, before approaching this Court, the Petitioner has not invited attention of the authorities to the grievances made by him in this Petition and in particular in paragraph Nos.3 to 7 thereof in relation to the other roads.

¶26

Though, we are not entertaining this Petition, we grant liberty to the Petitioner to make a representation to the Municipal Authorities as well as to the Police Authorities as regards the grievances made by the Petitioner in this Petition in relation to the roads which are more particularly described in paragraph Nos.3 to 7 of the Petition.

¶27

3 of 4

¶28

4 pil-111.14

¶29

We, accordingly dispose of the Petition. However, it will be open for the Petitioner to make appropriate representation to the concerned authorities as stated above. After such representations are made, the concerned authorities shall look into the same and shall reply to the representations after considering the same as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of one month from the date on which representations are made by the Petitioner. The Petition is disposed of on above terms.

¶30

(G.S. KULKARNI, J ) (A.S.OKA, J )

¶31

4 of 4

Shri. Chandrakant Keshav Palav v. the State of Maharashtra, through Sub Divisional Officer and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Chandrakant Keshav Palav v. the State of Maharashtra, through Sub Divisional Officer and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Kumar Lalit Vs the Union of India and 2 Others

Meera Sanyal and Anr. Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

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

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

Sanjay Vitthalrao Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Milind Arvind Pandey Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Irgonda Melappa Biradar Vs the Union of India through the Ministry of Law and Justice and Ors.

Irgonda Melappa Biradar Vs the Union of India through the Ministry of Law and Justice and Ors.

Ketan Tirodkar Vs Registrar General

Sou. Alka Vijayrao More Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Karanja Macchimar Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Society Ltd. Vs Union of India, through Ministry of Agriculture Dept of Animal Husbandry, Daiyrying and Anr.

Bahujan Mukti Party, Sangli District Unit, through General Secretary, Maharashtra State Vs Union of India, through Election Commission of India and Ors.

Mr. Yakub Kasim Kamble and Ors. Vs the Chief Executive Officer, Maharashtra State Board of Wakfs and Ors.

Oil States Industries (India) Private Limited and Anr. Vs City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited and Ors.