Court disposed of three petitions (two PILs and one Writ Petition) challenging an Amanora Park Town project based on alleged lack of permissions, finding that requisite permissions were obtained and no useful purpose would be served by keeping them pending.
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.
2-pil-156-2010@
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.156 OF 2010 WITH PUBLIC INTTEREST LITIGATION NO.121 OF 2012 WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2429 OF 2012
Sanjay Eknath Tupe and Others ...Petitioners
vs.
Union of India and Others ...Respondents.
Ms. Vrushali Mandal, for the Petitioner in PILs.
Mr. Mahesh Rawool i/b. Mr. A.B. Avhad for the Petitioner in WP. No.2429/2012.
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.
CORAM : SHANTANU KEMKAR & MAKARAND KARNIK, JJ.
DATE : JUNE 21, 2016
P.C.:
In PIL Nos. 156 of 2010 and 121 of 2012
raising of construction of a Special Township Project known as
“ Amanora Park Town, Hadapsar, Pune ”. The allegations against the
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.
2/3
Vishal Parekar
2-pil-156-2010@
In W.P. No. 2429 of 2012 :
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.
3/3
Vishal Parekar
Sanjay Eknath Tupe and Others
Union of India and Others
Shantanu Kemkar
Makarand Karnik
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
