Disposed

Dada Laxman Kunjir v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Jun 2016PIL/121/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two concurrent petitions challenging initiation of the Amanora Park Town project without permissions were disposed as no usage purpose warranted appointment. A third petition regarding a representation decision was rendered infructuous as the representation had been decided, leading to disposal of all petitions.

What did the court decide?

Petitions dismissed for being rendered infructuous or no purpose in maintenance.

Dada Laxman Kunjir Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

2-pil-156-2010@

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.156 OF 2010 WITH PUBLIC INTTEREST LITIGATION NO.121 OF 2012 WITH

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2429 OF 2012

¶5

Sanjay Eknath Tupe and Others ...Petitioners

¶6

vs.

¶7

Union of India and Others ...Respondents.

¶8

Ms. Vrushali Mandal, for the Petitioner in PILs.

¶9

Mr. Mahesh Rawool i/b. Mr. A.B. Avhad for the Petitioner in WP. No.2429/2012.

¶10

Mrs. M.P. Thakur, AGP for the Respondent-State. Mr. N.R. Prajapati, for Respondent No. 1-UOI in PIL No.156/2010. Mr. Vineet Naik, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. S.R. Kulkarni, for Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 in PIL No. 156/2010 and for Respondent No. 3 in PIL No. 121/2012.

¶11

CORAM : SHANTANU KEMKAR & MAKARAND KARNIK, JJ.

¶12

DATE : JUNE 21, 2016

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

In PIL Nos. 156 of 2010 and 121 of 2012

¶15

Parties through their counsel.

¶16

Through these Petitions the Petitioners have challenged

¶17

raising of construction of a Special Township Project known as

¶18

“ Amanora Park Town, Hadapsar, Pune ”. The allegations against the

¶19

Petitioners is that the project has commenced without obtaining

1/3

Vishal Parekar

2-pil-156-2010@

requisite permissions from the competent authorities. In reply the developer has stated the details of the steps taken and the permissions granted for the said project. The permissions which has been obtained by the developer have also been filed.

¶24

We have gone through the reply filed by the developer which clarifies that there is compliance of relevant rules and regulations. We have also gone through the reply filed by the State Government, more particularly the affidavit filed by Mr. Avinash B. Patil, Dy. Director of Town Planning, Division Pune and we are satisfied that the project has been commenced and completed after obtaining the requisite permissions. Neither the Petitioner nor any of the Respondent-authorities have disputed the aforesaid position.

¶25

Having gone through the averments made in the Petitions, reply filed and the stand taken by the State Government as also by the Union of India, we are satisfied that the project has been commenced and completed after taking requisite permissions. In the circumstances, no useful purpose will serve in keeping these Petitions pending. Accordingly we dispose of both the Petitions.

2/3

Vishal Parekar

2-pil-156-2010@

In W.P. No. 2429 of 2012 :

¶30

The learned counsel for the Petitioner on instruction

¶31

submits that the only relief claimed in this Petition is to direct Respondent No. 2 to decide the pending representation. We have been informed that the said representation has been decided. In the circumstances, no further relief can be granted in this Petition. The Petition has rendered infructuous. Accordingly it stands disposed of.

¶32

3/3

¶33

Vishal Parekar

Dada Laxman Kunjir v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dada Laxman Kunjir v. State of Maharashtra 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

Sambhaji Nanasaheb Chaughule Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shri. Dayanand Kallappa Sonage Vs Shri. Tukaram Munde and Ors.

Mr. Shriprakash Neel Vs Election Commission of India and Ors.

Shri. Dayanand Kallappa Sonage Vs Shri. Tukaram Munde and Ors.

Manish Ramniklal Sawla Vs State of Maharashtra Thro Govt. Pleader and 3 Ors.

Anti Corruption Committee Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

N.G. Jayasimha Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Dept.

Artist Council Thr. President Shri. O. P. Singh Vs Nagpur Municipal Corporation Thr. the Commissioner, Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Nagpur

Julie K.John and Anr. Vs B.M.C.and Ors.

Khiladi Komal Yadav Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

Jayant Maniklal Lunawat and Anr. Vs Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Vasanthi Muthappa Davadiga and Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation Corp. of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

M/S. Kalpataru Gardens Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation Greater Mumbai and 5 Ors.

Aditya Chandrakant Mody and 2 Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 8 Ors.