Dismissed

Shri. Sandeep Sharadchandra Thakur v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Dec 2016PIL/159/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL dealt with a grievance regarding the undefined term 'Action Area' in Navi Mumbai Corporation's Development Control Regulations. The Court accepted the State's submission to apply the CIDCO definition and directed the Corporation to implement the relevant regulation based on that meaning.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to implement Regulation 27.1 of DCR of Navi Mumbai Corporation using the CIDCO definition for 'Action Area'.

Shri. Sandeep Sharadchandra Thakur Vs the State… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

skn 1/2 159.15-pil.sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 159 OF 2015

¶4

Shri Sandeep Sharadchandra Thakur.	...	Petitioner.
V/s.
State of Maharashtra and others.	...	Respondents.

¶5

Sandeep Pathak for the petitioner. Mrs.M.P.Thakur, AGP for the State. S.V.Marne for respondent No.2. Roopdaksha Basu i/b. M/s.Law Point for respondent No.3.

¶6

CORAM : DR.MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J. AND M.S.SONAK, J. DATE : 8^th December 2016.

¶7

P.C. :

¶8

The City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (CIDCO), respondent No.3 herein has filed affidavit-in-reply. In terms of the directions of this Court dated 3^rd March 2016, the Government of Maharashtra has passed order dated 26^th July 2016. The grievance raised in this petition is with regard to regulation No.27.1 of Development Control Regulations (DCR) of Navi Mumbai. The term “Action Area” was not defined in the said regulations of Navi Mumbai Corporation and there seems to be some

¶9

skn 2/2 159.15-pil.sxw

¶10

ambiguity while development permissions were granted by respondent No.2- Corporation, especially, in the residential zone in Navi Mumbai.

¶11

The petitioner came to this Court with the grievance that by taking advantage of no definition is being made in the regulations with regard to the term “Action Area” there were some practical impediments in proper growth of Navi Mumbai. Having understood the defects coming in the way of practical implementation, this petition was filed and directions were granted in terms of the order dated 3^rd March 2016.

¶12

Now, the State has clarified the position that the term “Action Area” which is defined in CIDCO regulations shall apply to the term “Action Area” even in the case of regulations of Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation. In that view of the matter, there cannot be any ambiguity in extending such meaning to the term “Action Area” so far as respondent No.2- Corporation is concerned.

¶13

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of by directing respondent No.2 to implement regulation 27.1 of DCR so far as term “Action Area” is concerned.

¶14

(M.S.SONAK, J.) CHIEF JUSTICE

Shri. Sandeep Sharadchandra Thakur v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Sandeep Sharadchandra Thakur v. the 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushant Subhash More Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Social Justice and Welfare Dept and Ors.

Smt. Sujata Shamrao Desai and Anr. Vs the Chief Secretary, State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sushant Subhash More Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Social Justice and Welfare Dept and Ors.

Smt. Sujata Shamrao Desai and Anr. Vs the Chief Secretary, State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Amol Raghunath Wakade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay Environmental Action Group and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ms.Geetanjali Tapan Dutta, Vs Public Health Department, Maharashtra State and Ors.

Hirachand Mahadev Ankalgi Vs the Registrar, High Court, Mumbai and Ors.

Sushant Subhash More Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Social Justice and Welfare Dept and Ors.

Smt. Sujata Shamrao Desai and Anr. Vs the Chief Secretary, State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sushant Subhash More Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Social Justice and Welfare Dept and Ors.

Mahima Jitendra Patel Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Supreme Infrastructure India Limited Vs Mitc Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd.

Indusind Bank Limited Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.