Dismissed

Prabhakar S/O Dattatray Karajgar v. State of Mah. Thr. the Town Planner and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Sept 2014PIL/96/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, examined a PIL seeking removal of encroachments on National Highway No.275. Dismissing the petition, the court held it lacked public interest due to personal rivalry and prior litigation between the petitioner and respondent no.5.

What did the court decide?

The petition seeking removal of encroachments is dismissed without order as to costs.

Prabhakar S/O Dattatray Karajgar Vs State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

PIL96-12

¶2

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 96/2012

¶5

(PRABHAKAR DATTATRAY KARAJGAR VERSUS STATE OF MAH. & OTHERS)

¶6

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

Court's or Judge's orders

¶9

¶10

Shri A.S. Bhendarkar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri K.L. Dharmadhikari, A.G.P. for the R-1 to 3. Shri M.I. Dhatrak, counsel for the R-4. Shri G.G. Bade, counsel for the R-5.

¶11

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND

¶12

P.R. BORA, JJ.

¶13

DATE : SEPTEMBER 10, 2014.

¶14

By this petition, which is registered as a Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to remove the encroachments made by the respondent no.5 on National Highway No.275 on government land. Certain other ancillary reliefs are also sought by the petitioner.

¶15

An objection is raised by the respondent to the tenability of the writ petition, specially as a Public Interest Litigation, as according to the respondents, the petition is not Pro Bono Publico and is filed by the petitioner to serve his personal interest.

¶16

It appears on hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No.2356/2008 and the same was disposed of by an order dated 16.06.2008. This Court had granted liberty to the petitioner to ventilate his grievance before the appropriate authority. It further appears that there is a serious dispute in regard to the ownership of the land. Moreover, though several persons have allegedly encroached upon the land, the petitioner has joined only the

¶17

PIL96-12

¶18

¶19

respondent no.5 and has sought the removal of the alleged encroachment made by him. It appears that there is some rivalry between the petitioner and the respondent no.5 as the respondent no.5 had filed Regular Civil Suit No.2 of 2007 for recovery of amount against the wife of the petitioner. A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is also filed by the respondent no.5 against the petitioner. It is clear from a reading of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondents and the documents annexed thereto that the petitioner has filed the instant petition with a view to settle the score with the respondent no.5. In the aforesaid background, it cannot be said that the present petition is filed in public interest.

¶20

In view of the aforesaid, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶21

JUDGE JUDGE

¶22

APTE

Prabhakar S/O Dattatray Karajgar v. State of Mah. Thr. the Town Planner and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhakar S/O Dattatray Karajgar v. State of Mah. Thr. the Town Planner and Ors.

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

Sanjay Bhaskarrao Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dattatraya Kondaji Kale Vs Union of India and Ors.

Hemant Subhash Dalvi Vs State of Maharashtra and 10 Ors.

Madanlal Trivedi Vs the Brihanmumbai Police Karmachari Sahakari Patsoutha Maryadit and Ors.

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

Adv. Krunal Ananta Adhikari and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary of Ministry of Environment, Mumbai and Ors.

Sandeep Sudhakr Deshpande Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ashok S/o. Bansidhar Agarwal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Prafulla S/O Bhaskar Madame, and 4 Others Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary, Dept. of Rural Development, Mumbai and 3 Othe

Vaishali Sakharam Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra, Education and Sports Department, through Its Principal Secretary, Mumbai

Anil Kashinath Kondbattulwar Vs the Govt. of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and 2 Others

Hemandas S/O Tikamdas Gyanchandani and 3 Others Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, State Excise Department and 4 Others

Ku.Manda D/O Balkrishna Kamble Vs Education Officer,Z.P.Wardha and 2 Others

Amravati Vidyapeeth Gramin Shikshan MANCH,DARWHAand1 Vs the Amravati University and 3 Ors.