Disposed

Kishanrao Shripatrao Hiwale and Ors. v. State of Mah. and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Nov 2014WP/421/1986

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL concerning urban amenities in Aurangabad, the Court shifted the focus from the 1973 planning proposal to recent reports and affidavits. Due to the petitioners' death and the need for continuous monitoring, the Court disposed of the 1986 petition, directed the creation of a new PIL with a fresh paper book, and discharged the rule while keeping rival contentions open.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; New PIL to be registered with fresh paper book; Rule discharged. Pending civil applications disposed with liberty to move fresh applications in new PIL.

Kishanrao Shripatrao Hiwale and Ors. Vs State of… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

WP 421/86

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

 WRIT PETITION NO.421/1986

¶6

Kishanrao Sripatrao Hiwale & others.
...Petitioners..

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & others.

¶9

...Respondents...

¶10

 .....

¶11

Shri Pradip G. Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioners.
Smt.A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent nos.1 & 2.
Shri A.S. Bajaj, Advocate for respondent nos.3 & 4.
Smt.C.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent no.10.
Shri Atul Karad, Advocate for respondent no.11.
Shri U.S. Mote, Advocate for respondent no.13.
Shri S.S. Dande, Advocate for respondent no.14.

¶12

 .....

¶13

CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
 A.M. BADAR, JJ.
DATE: 13.11.2014

¶14

ORDER :

¶15

1]We have heard Shri Pradip G. Deshmukh, Advocate for
petitioners; Smt.A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent

¶16

nos.1 & 2; Shri A.S. Bajaj, Advocate for respondent nos.3
& 4; Smt.C.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent no.10;

¶17

Shri Atul Karad, Advocate for respondent no.11; Shri U.S.
Mote, Advocate for respondent no.13 and Shri S.S. Dande,

¶18

WP 421/86

¶19

- 2 -

¶20

Advocate for respondent no.14.

¶21

2]After hearing respective counsel and in view of the
passage of time from 1986 till date and developments,
which have taken place, we are passing following order
with consent as need of continuous monitoring is felt.

¶22

3]In this matter, which is treated as PIL, Rule was
issued on 28.1.1987. Rule has been issued only on prayer
clause (a) except sub-clauses (iv) and (VIII) thereof and
prayer clauses (b), (c) and (d). Expressly this Court
has refused to issue Rule on prayer clauses (f) and (g).

¶23

Rule on interim relief was issued in terms of prayer
clause (a). That order is reproduced below for ready
reference:

¶24

“This is another public interest litigation,
which must be looked into urgently since it
concerns the citizens of Aurangabad, one of the
fastest developing cities of the world.
Obviously, the amenities claimed are statutory
duties cast on some of the authorities, especially
the C.I.D.C.O. and the Municipal Corporation of
Aurangabad.

¶25

Rule be issued on prayer clause (a), except sub-
clauses (iv), (VIII) thereof and (b), (c) and (d).
Rule also on interim relief in terms of prayer
clause (e) returnable within 4 weeks.

¶26

WP 421/86

¶27

- 3 -

¶28

No rule be issued on prayer clauses (f) and (g).
Notices be issued along with writ of this rule
by the Registry of the High Court without payment
of bhatta and copies.”

¶29

4]The grievance in writ petition pertains to not
providing amenities / facilities or ignoring reservations

¶30

as provided for in development planning proposal
submitted by respondent nos.3 and 4 way back in 1973.
Respondent no.3 was constituted a special planning
authority u/s 40 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town
Planning Act. This Court has after said date passed
various orders. On 28.4.2004, a report showing the state
of affairs then prevailing has come on record. On
1.4.2006, CIDCO has handed over the entire maintenance of
services of new Aurangabad town to Municipal Corporation.
Thereafter, it is the respondent no.11 – Municipal
Corporation, which is responsible for said maintenance.

¶31

5]The position was last examined by this Court on
18.2.2014 and thereafter on 19.6.2014. On said dates,

¶32

this Court has again passed orders in detail after
hearing all concerned. In obedience to those directions,
City Engineer of respondent no.11 has filed an affidavit

¶33

WP 421/86

¶34

- 4 -

¶35

on 7.8.2014.

¶36

6]Parties state that thus controversy now surviving is
about the facts disclosed in report / affidavit of City
Engineer dated 7.8.2014. It needs to be examined in the
light of orders dated 18.2.2014 and 19.6.2014.

¶37

7]Advocate Shri Pradip Deshmukh states that petitioner
no.1 has expired in the meanwhile and he seeks leave to
delete his name. Leave is granted. Necessary deletion
be carried out forthwith.

¶38

8]Advocate Shri Pradip Deshmukh also states that in

¶39

view of cognizance taken by this Court and orders passed
from time to time, now respondent no.2 – Advocate General
as also respondent no.5 – Karmachari Malki Griha Nirman

¶40

Sanstha, State Bank of Hyderabad; respondent no.6 –
Mayurban proposed Cooperative Housing Society; respondent
no.7 – S.T. Housing Society; respondent no.8 – Lokmat

¶41

Karmachari Griha Nirman Cooperative Housing Society;
respondent no.9 – M/s Prithwi Prakashan and respondent
no.10 – M/s Garware Plastics & Polyester Pvt.Ltd., are

¶42

no longer required to be continued or arrayed as
respondents. However, it is pointed out that in the
light of interim orders passed by this Court on

¶43

WP 421/86

¶44

- 5 -

¶45

17.10.2001, it is necessary to continue respondent no.12

¶46

– The Aurangabad Resorts Private Limited as party
respondent. Today, nobody is appearing for said

¶47

respondent. In view of request, respondent nos.2 to 10
are deleted.

¶48

9]The record has become bulky and old papers have also
out-grown their life. Some of the papers are also torn
and, therefore, cannot be read or referred to.

¶49

10]In this situation, it is accepted that the initial
order issuing Rule reproduced above, interim order passed
on 17.10.2011, report dated 24.8.2004, later orders of
this Court dated 18.2.2014 and 19.6.2014 as also
affidavit of City Engineer dated 7.8.2014 should only be
looked into by this Court for finding out whether
necessary facilities and amenities have now been provided
for in the area of said new Aurangabad town scheme. All
parties agree to this.

¶50

11] Parties submit that these papers may accordingly be
removed from original records and a fresh PIL can be
registered. It is not in dispute that planning proposals
in 1973 have been amended from time to time and thus the
situation prevailing needs to be examined in the light of

¶51

WP 421/86

¶52

- 6 -

¶53

present development proposals and current development
plan of the area.

¶54

12] In this situation, we direct the Registry that the
copy of order issuing Rule, copy of interim order dated
17.10.2001, copy of report dated 24.8.2004, copies of
orders of this Court dated 18.2.2014 and 19.6.2014 and
affidavit of City Engineer dated 7.8.2014 shall be placed
together and a separate paper book shall be prepared for
convenient reference. The said paper book shall be
registered as a new PIL and shall be placed before this
Court for its consideration. The said exercise shall be
completed within two weeks from today at the cost of
respondent no.11 – Corporation and respondent nos.3 & 4 –
CIDCO. The Registry shall provide paper books to all
contesting parties i.e. Advocate Shri Pradip Deshmukh on
behalf of petitioners; learned AGP on behalf of
respondent no.1; Advocate for respondent no.12 – The
Aurangabad Resorts Pvt.Ltd.; Advocate Shri U.S. Mote for
respondent no.13 and Advocate Shri S.S. Dande for
respondent no.14.

¶55

13] The Registry to provisionally calculate the amount

¶56

required for completing this exercise and respondent

¶57

WP 421/86

¶58

- 7 -

¶59

nos.3 & 4 on one hand and respondent no.11 on other hand
shall deposit it in equal proportion with the Registry
within one week of its computation. If after actual
completion of exercise, any shortfall is noticed, the
amount in deficit shall be paid in same proportion within
two weeks by these respondents.

¶60

14] The records of Writ Petition No.421/1986 shall,
however, be made available for perusal of this Court
along with new PIL if occasion therefor arises.

¶61

15] With these directions, it is made clear that new

¶62

PIL shall not continue against respondent nos.2,5,6,7,8,9
and 10, mentioned supra. We dispose of Writ Petition
No.421/1986 keeping all rival contentions open if
occasion to consider the same arises in new PIL.

¶63

16]Our attention is invited to pending Civil
Applications. We have heard Advocate Smt.Renuka Ghule

¶64

for applicant in Civil Application No.7289/2013 and
Advocate Shri M.R. Andhale for applicants in Civil
ApplicationNos.1904/2002,7357/2002,7358/2002,

¶65

7461/2002 and 7462/2002.

¶66

17] Advocate Smt.Ghule and Shri Andhale state that
they support amenities and facilities to be provided, as

¶67

WP 421/86

¶68

- 8 -

¶69

claimed by petitioners. Advocate Shri Andhale submits
that their effort is to assist petitioners in getting
encroachments in the area removed.

¶70

18] Advocate Smt.Ghule submits that applicant wants
land to be allotted for providing Remand Home for girls.

¶71

19] It is apparent that these grievances can be and
need to be made independently in separate writ petitions.
If applicants are so advised, they can also move fresh
applications in new PIL.

¶72

20] In this situation, these civil applications are

¶73

disposed of with liberty, as mentioned above, to
respective applicants.

¶74

21] Subject to above directions, Rule is discharged.
Writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶75

ndk/ c13111414.doc

Kishanrao Shripatrao Hiwale and Ors. v. State of Mah. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishanrao Shripatrao Hiwale and Ors. v. State of Mah. and Ors.

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

Ramrao Baburao Budre Vs the Chief Executive Officer Zp Latur and Ors.

Umadevi Ramchandra Giri Vs the Union of India through Petroleum Secretary and Ors.

Saleem Daulat Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Anil Umrao Gote Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bhagwan Bhanudas Bhojane Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Suresh Shamrao Patil Deceased through Lrs Padmabai Suresh Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.