Disposed
Cinema Barrack Road Welfare Group and Ors. v. Municipal Corp. of Gr.Mumbai and Ors.
Bombay HCPIL/29/2011
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
IN THE HIGH COURT
What the court decided
AI extract
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.
spb/
17pil29-11.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 29 OF 2011
M/s. Cinema Barrack Road Welfare & Anr. … Petitioners.
V/s.
Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai & Others. … Respondents.
Mr. Viral Shukla i/by Shukla & Associates for the Petitioners. Mrs. Trupti Puranik for the MCGM. Mrs. A. R. Lambay with Ms.Anita Castelino i/by M/s. Lambay & Co. for Respondent No.5.
CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND A. P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATE : 14 NOVEMBER, 2014 P.C. :
1 Heard.
2 The learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that Respondent No.1-Municipal Corporation by a circular dated 8th May 2002 had introduced a policy for development and maintenance of Gardens/Recreation Grounds/Play Grounds/ Traffic Islands through sponsors on adoption basis. The subject garden was enlisted for adoption under the said policy by the Corporation. The Petitioners are the residents of surrounding
1/5
Borey
17pil29-11.sxw
spb/
area of the subject garden viz. 'Walters D'Souza Garden', which was reserved for garden purpose. Said plot is situated behind Metro Cinema, Mumbai.
3 On instructions, the learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that earlier the said garden was allotted to Petitioner No.1 under the specific permission granted by the Corporation. Petitioner No.1 was looking after the garden and paying Rs.25,000/-per month to the Corporation. The permission was renewed after 2007. It is submitted that a part of the garden area, is now utilized for the purpose of study centre. According to the original plan, the subject plot was to be utilized for providing lawn facility for the senior citizens and children. A walking track was also prepared in the lawn premises. It is submitted by the learned counsel that contrary to the policy framed by the Corporation in the year 2002, a part of the garden plot was permitted to be utilized by the corporation as a study centre. According to the Petitioners, running of the study centre is causing disturbance to the surrounding residents and that the Petitioners are not fully satisfied with the way the garden is being used and maintained by the Corporation. The learned counsel submitted that in the larger public interest, necessary directions may be given to the Corporation so that the garden in question is maintained properly and the said plot is used for the purpose for which it was earmarked.
2/5
Borey
17pil29-11.sxw
spb/
4 The learned counsel for the Corporation on the other hand submits that an affidavit-in-reply dated 19th December, 2011 was filed by the Corporation through Vivek Manohar Khavnekar, the Assistant Engineer in the Corporation, wherein the deponent contended that an agreement was entered into by the Corporation with the Petitioners in the year 2007. It is further stated that Respondent No.5,the then MLA from Colaba Assembly constituency had requested for grant of NOC for starting a study centre at the said garden i.e. Walter D'Souza Garden in 'A' ward from her MLA fund. As per clause 5 of the circular dated 22nd January, 2009, her request was processed. The deponent further deposed/stated that the garden is open to the public between 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. on all days in the week. There are security guards posted by the Corporation. There are 33 electric lamps provided and power is presently supplied by the BEST, Mumbai. It is stated that there are many colleges, schools around the study centre in the vicinity. There is no other study centre available in the nearby area and the students are taking benefit of reading, studying at said study centre. The study centre is completed as per the approved plan and would be handed over to the MCGM by the MHADA and the Corporation will run the Study Centre at their own cost.
3/5
Borey
spb/
17pil29-11.sxw
5 The learned counsel for the Corporation further submits the Corporation is taking due care of maintenance of the garden and the study centre. The Corporation would take appropriate steps, if any misuse at the study centre is noticed.
6 The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.5 submits that in the larger public interest the request was made by Respondent No.5 which was accepted by the Corporation. It is submitted that the funds alloted to the member of the legislative assembly were to be utilized for the welfare of the people and accordingly, the funds were spent by her for the study centre. The learned counsel submits that no interference is warranted in the matter as the subject garden is being used as earmarked under the plan and it is being properly maintained by the Corporation for garden and study centre purpose which facility is utilized by students and general public, including older people and the children.
7 We have perused the record. Considering the submissions advanced, we do not find any infirmity or discrepancy in the decision of the Corporation in processing the request of Respondent No.5 for reserving the said plot for garden purpose and starting a study centre in a part of the area of the said plot. The Corporation was maintaining the garden properly and the study centre was established at the site for specific purposes. The Corporation shall take care that
4/5
Borey
spb/
17pil29-11.sxw
the security guards are present during the duty hours. Electricity supply and other necessary facilities shall be continuously provided at the site.
8 With these observations and directions, the petition is disposed of.
(A.P.BHANGALE, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL,J.)
5/5
Borey
M/s. Cinema Barrack Road Welfare & Anr.
Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai
Respondent No.5
NARESH H. PATIL
A. P. BHANGALE
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