A PIL seeking demolition of illegal construction was disposed of since the subject structure was already handled in a related writ petition resulting in demolition, making further orders unnecessary.
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.
1
PIL111.03-2.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.111 OF 2003
Shri Faquirchand Sharma .. Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
None for the petitioner. Mr.V.S.Gokhale AGP for respondent no.1. Mr.A.Y.Sakhare, Sr.Advocate a/w Mrs.Geeta Joglekar for respondent no.2.
CORAM : A.S.OKA & K.R.SHRIRAM, JJ.
DATE : 24th August, 2015
P.C.
1 None appears for the petitioner. The prayer in this petition under
Article-226 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to take action of demolition in respect of illegal construction undertaken by 3rd to 6th respondents.
2 Smt.Chanda Jadhav, Assistant Commissioner `T' ward of the Bombay Municipal Corporation has filed an affidavit dated 23.7.2015. She has stated that when she personally inspected the site, she noticed that there existed a ground + 1 structure occupied by 21 occupants. Hence, a notice
1/2
KJ
2
PIL111.03-2.doc
has been served to the owners and occupiers under Section 351 of MMC Act. It is stated that the occupiers of individual 21 rooms did not reply to the notices, but after considering the reply received from one Shri Prashant Vichare claiming to be the owner, the Assistant Engineer (B & F)/D.O.(I) has passed a detailed speaking order of demolition on 17.7.2015.
3 We must note here that the said Prashant Vichare challenged the said order by filing Writ Petition (L) No.2195 of 2015. In the said petition, the said Prshant Vichare gave an undertaking to apply for regularization of the said structure. He has also given undertaking that in the event the application for regularization is rejected, he will remove the structure himself. By accepting the said undertaking, petition has been disposed of. Hence, action in respect of the illegal structure/subject matter of this PIL, has been taken by the Municipal Corporation. Hence, no further direction is required to be issued.
(K.R. SHRIRAM, J.) (A.S.OKA,J)
2/2
KJ
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to writ of mandamus directing demolition of illegal construction when the matter has already been addressed in a related writ petition
Whether the Municipal Corporation's action on a regularization undertaking by another petitioner precludes further directions in this PIL
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Shri Faquirchand Sharma
State of Maharashtra
Bombay Municipal Corporation
A.S.Oka
K.R.Shriram
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
