Public interest litigation seeking directions to construct buildings on donated property and restrain demolition. The court held that assessing administrative feasibility of two buildings at one location does not warrant judicial interference.
None; Writ petition rejected as it concerns an administrative decision.
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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
912 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.5 OF 2015
DHIRAJ SHANTLING SHINDE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr.Mane Dhairyashil M And
Nagargoje A N
Mrs. AV Gondhalekar Addl.GP for Respondents 1 To 8
CORAM: R.M.BORDE &
P.R.BORA,JJ.
DATE :10th February,2015.
PER COURT :
1)The petitioner is praying for issuance of
directions to the Respondents to construct Central
Administrative building and Tehsil office on Survey
No. 243/B, situated at Bhoom, District Osmanabad. The
petitioner is also seeking a restraint order from
demolishing existing building of tehsil office, Bhoom
and constructing the proposed tehsil office building
within the existing premises of the tehsil office at
Bhoom.
2)It is the contention of the petitioner that
a Trust, viz. Alamprabhu Devasthan has donated the
property, i.e. Survey No. 243/B, free of costs, in
favour of the State Government with a view to
facilitate the State Government to construct tehsil
office and administrative building. It is the
further contention of the petitioner that since the
property has been donated to the State Government for
2
the aforesaid purpose free of costs, it is not
permissible for the State Government to change its
stance and proceed to construct tehsil office at some
different place. The State Government proposes to
construct the tehsil office at the existing site by
demolishing the old dilapidated structures.
3)Learned AGP, appearing for the State, on
instructions, informs that it is not practically
feasible to construct both the buildings, i.e. tehsil
office and administrative building at the same place.
A decision has, therefore, been taken to construct
the administrative building in Survey No.243/B.
4)Learned Counsel for petitioner contends that
it would be inconvenient for the people at large to
visit two offices at two different locations/places.
The contentions raised by the petitioner need not be
gone into since it is an administrative decision of
the State Government to construct its offices within
the limits of taluka place, i.e. Bhoom and in all
probabilities, both the buildings are within
proximate distance.
5)The administrative decision taken by the
State Government to construct two buildings at two
different locations, does not call for any
interferenceinexerciseofextra-ordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of
India. The writ petition, as such, stands rejected.
(P.R.BORA)
JUDGE
(R.M.BORDE)
JUDGE
bdv/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the State Government's administrative decision to construct office buildings at two different locations calls for interference under Article 226.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dhiraj Shantling Shinde
The State of Maharashtra
R.M. Borde
P.R. Bora
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