The Bombay High Court dismissed a PIL filed by a councillor challenging the Government's decision to execute urgent public works via the PWD instead of the Municipal Council, citing lack of urgency for intervention and absence of a formal council objection.
The Public Interest Litigation was dismissed.
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 of 5 PIL.160.2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.160 OF 2014
Anil Gajanan Bhagat Petitioner
versus State of Maharashtra and others Respondents
Mr.S.G.Deshmukh with Mr.J.S.Chandnani for Petitioner. Mr.Shekhar Bhise, AGP for Respondents 1 and 2 State. Mr.Dinesh Adsule for Respondents 3 and 4.
CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND B.P.COLABAWALLA, J.
DATE : 26 February 2015
PC :
The petitioner, a councillor of respondent no.3 Kulgaon-Badlapur Municipal Council, has filed the present Public Interest Litigation for challenging the decision of the State Government in the Urban Development Department to get certain public works done within the limits of Kulgaon-Badlapur Municipal Council through Public Works Department.
2 of 5 PIL.160.2014
Engineer (PWD), Chief Officer of the concerned municipal council and the District Project Officer (urban administration). The urgent public works were entrusted to Public Works Department. The cost of the projects appears to be to the tune of Rs.173.62 crores. As far as urgent public works in KulgaonBadlapur municipal area is concerned, the administraive sanction is granted for the work of Rs.7.15 crores.
3 of 5 PIL.160.2014
4 of 5 PIL.160.2014
meeting of the municipal council to discuss such issues. Secondly, the Government affidavit indicates that PWD has a large number of officers having technical expertise; such as Executive Engineer, Sub Divisional Engineer, Sectional Engineer and Assistant Civil Engineers. The petitioner has no where stated that Kulgaon-Badlapur Municipal Council has such a large number of technical man-power to supervise such works of urgent public importance being carried out.
5 of 5 PIL.160.2014
dated 3 December 2013 itself contemplated no objection from the Chief Officer and not from the municipal council. Secondly, the objection is not raised by the municipal council as such but by a solitary municipal councillor. We further note that the government resolution dated 3 December 2013 under which the Chief Officer has granted the no objection and the PWD is carrying on the works, that government resolution itself has not been challenged by the petitioner.
(CHIEF JUSTICE)
(B.P.COLABAWALLA, J.)
MST
3 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court should interfere with the Government decision to execute urgent public works via PWD instead of entrusting the Municipal Council.
Whether the absence of a Municipal Council resolution and the action by a solitary councillor justify entertaining this PIL.
Whether it is appropriate to allow more time for completion of works to avoid stalling projects of public importance.
Anil Gajanan Bhagat
State of Maharashtra
MOHIT S. SHAH
B.P. COLABAWALLA
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
