The petition challenged a State Government notification altering land reservation from a primary school to a college under the MRTP Act, filed nearly a decade after objection notifications were issued; the court found gross delay unjustified and rejected the petition.
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.
pil90
1
ssp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.90 OF 2009
Sanjay Vishwanath Paramane ...Petitioner
vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
Mr.Amit Sale for the Petitioner
Mr.V.P.Malvankar, AGP `A' Panel for the respondent
Nos.1 and 2
Mr.Sarang Aradhye for respondent No.3
Mr.P.M.Arjunwadkar for respondent No.4
Mr.A.R.Metkari for respondent No.5
Mr.G.S.Godbole i/b Mr.Siddharth Ronghe for
respondent No.6.
CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
A.S.CHANDURKAR, JJ.
DATE : JULY 15,2014
P.C.:
1Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The challenge in this PIL is to the action of the
State Government of exercising the power under sub-
section 2 of section 37 of the Maharashtra Regional
and Town Planning Act,1966 (for short MRTP Act) by
issuing a notification dated 30th September 2000.
The development plan under the MRTP Act for the city
of Pandharpur was sanctioned and was brought into
force on 10th January 1985. The land bearing Survey
Nos.87A and 87B/2 (Part) admeasuring 8900 was
reserved at the reservation No.74 under the
sanctioned development plan for primary school and
play ground. Appropriate Authority was shown as the
2 pil90
Pandharpur Municipal Council. By the modification
issued on 30th September 2000 under sub-section (2)
of section 37, the reservation No. 74 was changed to
“college and play ground”. Instead of the
Pandharpur Municipal Council, Pandharpur Shikshan
Prasarak Mandal (for short `the said Trust') was
made the Appropriate Authority.
2The submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the exercise of power under sub-
section (2) of section 37 of the MRTP Act is
completely illegal. He submitted that the
modification under sub-section (2) of section 37
could have been made only to the extent of
resolution passed by the Municipal Council. He urged
that the modification in public interest could have
been made by the State Government only in the
exercise of powers under sub-section (1-AA) of
section 37 of the MRTP Act. It is submitted that
the municipal schools in Pandharpur are being run in
the private properties which are in dilapidated
condition. He submitted that the play grounds are
not available to municipal schools. He pointed out
that the local MLA is the Chairman of the Trust
which is appointed as the Appropriate Authority. It
is contended that though there was a reservation in
sanctioned development plan for school, the
Municipal Council did not take any steps for
acquisition of the said land and only after the said
Trust purchased the said land under reservation, the
power of modification of reservation has been
exercised. He submitted that considering the extent
pil90
3
of illegality, alleged delay will not come in the
way of entertaining this PIL. He urged that after
the petitioner became aware of the impugned
notification on 17th December 2008, he made a
representation to the State Government.
3We have given careful consideration to the
submissions. We have perused the affidavit of Shri
Mangesh P. Chitale, the Chief Officer of Pandharpur
Municipal Council, Pandharpur in which the
objection regarding gross delay has been raised. It
is contended that there is delay of 9 years in
filing this PIL. It is pointed out that on 29th April
1993, a resolution was passed by the Municipal
Council proposing the change of reservation. It is
stated in the affidavit that there was a direction
issued by the Director of Town Planning, Pune vide
letter dated 30th May 1992 and by passing resolutions
dated 29th June 1995 and 25th February 1996 the
process of modification of the said reservation was
initiated by the Municipal Council. It is contended
that the notification was published in a daily
newspaper Kesari on 10th September 1995 and the
Notification was published on 29th September 1995 in
the Government Gazette inviting suggestions and
objections to the proposed modification. It is
specifically contended that the petitioner failed to
submit any objection. In short, it is pointed out
that way back in the year 1995, objections were
invited and the petitioner did not raise any
objection. The proposal for the modification/change
was sanctioned by the impugned notification issued
pil90
4
30th September 2000.
4There is an affidavit filed by Smt.Sadhana P.
Naik, Deputy Director of Town Planning. It is
stated in paragraph 10 of the affidavit that the
acquisition of the reserved land would have resulted
in loss of public money. It is contended that now
the public amenity will be made available by the
private institution.
5The process was commenced in the year 1992.
There was a public notice of the proposal in the
year 1995. Moreover, for challenging the impugned
notification dated 30th September 2000, this PIL is
filed in March 2009. Considering what is stated in
the reply and considering the gross delay for which
there is no explanation, this PIL cannot be
entertained. It must be noted that the petitioner is
a lawyer by profession. Therefore, it is not
possible to accept the fact that in the year 1995
the petitioner was not aware of the public notice
inviting objections and suggestions. As stated
earlier, there is absolutely no explanation for
gross delay. Hence, this is not a fit case to
exercise writ jurisdiction. Petition is rejected.
(A.S.CHANDURKAR,J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can entertain a PIL challenging a development plan modification altered reservation and apportionment despite gross delay of nine years without explanation.
Whether a petitioner-lawyer can claim ignorance of public notices inviting objections in 1995 when the alleged impugned notification was issued in 2000.
Whether the PIL fits the case for exercise of writ jurisdiction given the delay and lack of explanation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sanjay Vishwanath Paramane
State of Maharashtra
A.S.Oka
A.S.Chandurkar
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