High Court bench rejected a PIL challenging a contract for affordable housing under BASS Yojana. Court held that while land title issues were raised, the Municipal Corporation held the land in records, and substantial construction progress made the PIL a fit case for rejection.
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.
skn 1/5 120.15-pil.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATIN NO. 120 OF 2015
Kisan Ganpat Jadhav. ... Petitioner. V/s. Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation and others. ... Respondents.
Anand D. Bhatia for the petitioner. Vijay D. Patil for respondent No.1. Vijay Killedar with Anil D. Yadav for respondent No.2. Anish Khandekar for respondent No.4.
CORAM : A.S. OKA AND C.V.BHADANG, JJ
DATED : 29th February 2016.
P.C. :
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. In this PIL, there is challenge to the contract awarded by the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation for the construction of tenements at Rahul Nagar, Ulhasnagar-2 and Valmiki Nagar, Ulhasnagar-5 under Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Shram Safalya Yojana (for short “BASS Yojana”). It is pointed out that the Municipal Corporation has undertaken the construction at the aforesaid two places under the Basic Services to the Urban Poor (for short “BSUP”) and Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (for short “JNNURM”) Schemes.
skn 2/5 120.15-pil.sxw
skn 3/5 120.15-pil.sxw
municipal employees. It is stated that the revised sanctioned plan has been approved.
skn 4/5 120.15-pil.sxw
have two projects at Rahul Nagar and Walmiki Vasahat under JNNURM through BSUP scheme. It is stated that the said scheme could not go through and, therefore, the amounts received from the Central and the State Governments were refunded and thereafter, the housing scheme under BASS Yojana was proposed by the Municipal Corporation on its own land (Walmiki Vasahat). It is stated that under the said scheme, the tenements are being constructed at the affordable prices for the existing occupiers on the part of the same land who are the sweepers and the municipal employees. In the revised plan, the proposed construction on a lesser area of 6,060.40 sq.meters. There is a statement on oath that the contractor who was appointed on the earlier scheme is continued for the subsequent scheme at the rate of the year 2008-09. Apart from the fact that a specific contention as to the monetary loss is not pleaded, we fail to understand as to how any loss is caused to the Municipal Corporation.
skn 5/5 120.15-pil.sxw
buildings have been already constructed by the contractor under the BASS Yojana. Even the averments made in paragraph- 10 of the petition show that the petitioner himself has admitted that a substantial progress has been made in the construction. In the affidavit of Bharat Bhatija, it is stated that 80% of work is already over. Therefore, in our view, this is not a fit case to entertain the PIL. Accordingly, the petition is rejected.
(C.V. BHADANG, J) (A.S.OKA, J)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the PIL should be entertained regarding alleged monetary loss to the Municipal Corporation due to reduced construction area.
Whether the Municipal Corporation's possession of land is valid while a Sub-Divisional Officer states land has not been transferred.
Whether the PIL is a fit case for judicial intervention given the substantial progress made in construction.
Kisan Ganpat Jadhav
Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation
others
A.S. Oka
C.V. Bhadanga
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
