The High Court Bombay Bench at Aurangabad dismissed a PIL challenging the legality of a Public Private Partnership agreement for constructing a commercial complex. The court held the local body was exempt from planning permissions and found no illegality in the agreement execution or construction activities.
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.
pil84.15
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LIGITATION NO.84 OF 2015
Balaji s/o Daulatrao Humbad,
Age-50 years, Occu:Agriculture
and Social Work,
R/o-Plot No.4, Gut No.300,
Radhakrishna Nagri, Nanded.
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary in the Department of Municipal Administration, Mantralaya, Fort, Mumbai-32,2) The Commissioner, Nanded Waghala City Municipal Corporation, Nanded,3) The Deputy Commissioner, (Development), Nanded Waghala City Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad,4) Shri. Ratnakar s/o Kantrao Waghmare, Age-51 years, Occu:Service as Deputy Commissioner, NMWC, having his office in the premises of Nanded Waghala City Municipal Corporation, Nanded,5) The Town Planner, Office of Town Planning Department, Nanded Waghala City Municipal Corporation, Nanded.pil84.15
2
6) Sanman Constructions (JV),
Through its Proprietor,
Shri Satish s/o Purshottam Maheshwari,
Age-50 years, Occu:Business,
having its office at Block No.201,
First Floor, Sanman Towers,
Vajirabad, Nanded - 431 601
and Residence at Industrial Estate,
Shivaji Nagar, Nanded,
7) Jai Kedarnath Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.,
A Company registered under the
Companies Act 1956,
Through its Director,
Shri. Satish s/o Purshottam Maheshwari,
Age-50 years, Occu:Business,
having its office at 201,
First Floor, Sanman Tower,
Vajirabad, Nanded - 431 601,
8) The District Collector,
Nanded,
9) The Director of Town Planning,
Maharashtra State,
having its office at Pune.
...RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. Amit A. Mukhedkar Advocate for the
Petitioner.
Mr. V.M. Kagne, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.
1, 8 and 9.
Mr. R.K. Ingole Patil Advocate for Respondent
Nos. 2 to 5.
Mr. P.M. Shah, Senior Counsel i/b. Mr. G.A.
Gadhe Advocate for Respondent Nos.6 & 7.
...
pil84.15
3
CORAM: R.M. BORDE AND
A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ.
DATE : 12TH FEBRUARY, 2016
JUDGMENT [PER A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.] :
1.Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable
forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for
the parties, the Petition is taken up for final
disposal at admissions stage.
2.The Petitioner claiming to be social
worker, has filed this Petition seeking
declaration that the construction of commercial
complex, namely, Ranjeet Singh Market and Bindu
Mangal Karyalaya on Survey No.1803 at Nanded
admeasuring 51,312 Sq. Ft. carried out by
Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 (hereafter referred as
“concessionaires”) is illegal and unauthorized.
Petitioner wants that the Respondent Authorities
should demolish the structure and the 'concession
pil84.15
4
agreement' dated 30th November 2012 executed by Respondent No.4 with Concessionaires be held to be illegal and void ab initio . The Petitioner is questioning the authority of Respondent No.4 who signed the agreement as Deputy Commissioner and wants a departmental inquiry to be held against him. Petitioner has prayed that Concessionaires be black listed and there should be recovery of penalty/ lease amount as they have not completed construction in 48 months from 30th November 2012 as per clause 4.4.1.1 of the tender document.
3.We have heard the learned counsel for the
Petitioner. Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5 have filed
affidavit in reply of the Town Planner, dated 14th
January 2016. The Concessionaires have also filed
affidavit in reply dated 14th December 2015. We
have heard learned counsel for Respondents also.
CASE OF PETITIONER
4(A).
It is stated for the Petitioner that
pil84.15
5
Respondent Corporation is owner and possessor of
the land Survey No.1803. On this land there was an
old building having commercial market known as
“Maharaja Ranjeet Singh Market and Digambarrao
Bindu Mangal Karyalaya" (herein after referred as
“complex”). It is in the center of the Nanded
city. The Corporation decided to demolish the old
structure and construct a new commercial complex
under “Public Private Partnership Basis” (P.P.P.
Basis). On 5th June 2012 bids were invited by
publishing public tender. The Concessionaires
participated in the bid and were successful. They
were required to develop and complete the
construction for an amount of Rupees Five Crores
Ninety One Lakhs. The construction was to be
completed in 48 months. In this period, not only
the construction was to be completed but the shops
and facilities were required to be leased out and
the end user should start paying lease rent to the
Corporation, and in default, the Concessionaires
shall be treated as occupying the vacant
pil84.15
6
facilities / shops / offices and shall be liable
to pay lease rent.
4(B).It is argued for the Petitioner that
the Corporation has issued contract acceptance
letter to the Concessionaires on 29th August 2012
and 'concession agreement' dated 30th November 2012
(Exhibit D) has been executed and registered. The
period of 48 months commenced on 30th November 2012
and expired on 29thNovember 2014 but the
constructions is still not complete and
Concessionaires cannot be permitted to further
construct as the construction period has expired.
The further construction is thus unauthorized. The
learned counsel submitted that the Petitioner
collected information (Exhibit E) under Right to
Information Act and has learnt that the
Concessionaires have not done the construction
obtaining permission of construction from the Town
Planner, as such the construction activity is
without permission and illegal. As per Section 43
pil84.15
7
of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act,
1966 ('M.R.T.P. Act” - in short), the construction
carried out without permission of planning
authority is illegal. It is argued that as per
observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
matter of Mahendra Baburao Mahadik and others vs.
Subhash Krishna Kanitkar and others, reported in
A.I.R. 2005 Supreme Court 1794, the Municipal
Council does not have power to regularize
unauthorized construction and it must be
demolished.
4(C).It is stated for the Petitioner that
Respondent No.4 executed the agreement in capacity
of Deputy Commissioner of the Corporation by
virtue of the order dated 19th November 2012 issued
by Respondent No.2 regarding delegation of powers.
The counsel submitted that this Respondent No.4
Ratnakar has, in his service records, at different
times shown either different name of his father or
surname and thus, according to the counsel,
pil84.15
8
identity of Respondent No.4 is doubtful and
inquiry needs to be made regarding his locus. It
is further submitted that as per Section 68(2) of
the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act,
Municipal Commissioner can delegate his powers to
any other municipal officer, subject to approval
of the Standing Committee. In the present matter,
order dated 19th November 2012 was passed by the
Commissioner – Respondent No.2 authorizing Deputy
Commissioner to execute the agreement, but no
prior approval of the Standing Committee has been
obtained and thus the agreement is illegal.
4(D).It is stated for the Petitioner that
the Corporation has issued Circular dated 10th
March 2015 whereby minor discrepancies regarding
area and delay in construction can be regularized
by imposing “hardship premium and penalty”. The
Mayor of the Corporation has passed Resolution in
General Body Meeting dated 14th August 2014 that
benefit of hardship premium cannot be given to the
pil84.15
9
Concessionaires. It is claimed that the
Concessionaires have not deposited development
premium also as per the agreement and as directed
in Resolution dated 16th August 2012.
4(E).It is stated that Petitioner had
earlier filed R.C.S. No.72 of 2015 in the Court of
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded for
injunction, but as the temporary injunction
application was yet not decided, the Petitioner
had no option but to withdraw the said Suit and
file this Public Interest Litigation. According to
the Petitioner, the Suit was allowed to be
withdraw on 25th August 2015.
DEFENCE OF RESPONDENT NOS. 2, 3 & 5
5(A). Per contra, Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5,
in their affidavit in reply have stated and it has
been argued for these Respondents that the
Petition deserves to be dismissed. It is stated
pil84.15
10
that at the place of complex, there was earlier an
old structure which was decided by the Corporation
to be developed on P.P.P. Basis. Regarding this,
Resolution No.178 was passed by General Body on
30th January 2009. Reference has been made to the
Resolution, copy of which has been filed at
Exhibit RA-1. It is pointed out that the
Corporation took services of consultant M/s.
Fortress and detailed feasibility report for
redevelopment of the Market and Mangal Karyalaya
was obtained as per Exhibit RA-2. The Corporation
took assistance of an expert before going into
Public Private Partnership and guidelines were
settled. As per the guidelines, public tender was
published in newspaper dated 10th February 2012
(Exhibit RA-3). These Respondents state that on
receipt of tenders, the rate of the
Concessionaires were found to be the highest and
scrutiny committee of the Corporation looked into
the same. Thereafter Standing Committee of the
Corporation caused negotiation and Concessionaires
pil84.15
11
increased their officer from Rs.5,21,10,000/- to
Rs.5,91,00,000/-. The Committee then accepted the
offer of Concessionaires passing Resolution No.93
dated 16th February 2012. It has been argued that
the Resolution Exhibit RA-4, itself shows that it
was the third occasion for calling tenders through
newspaper and this time the tenders received were
found to be in order. On 22nd August 2012 General
Body vide Resolution No.94 (Exhibit RA-5),
authorized the Municipal Commissioner to execute
an agreement with Concessionaires and consequently
the Commissioner issued acceptance letter dated
29th August 2012 (Exhibit RA-6) and the agreement
came to be executed on 30th November 2012, which
has been filed by the Petitioner.
5(B).It is stated on behalf of these
Respondents that under Section 72B of the
Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949
(“Municipal Corporations Act” in brief), the
Municipal Commissioner has authority to delegate
pil84.15
12
his powers to subordinate officers. Accordingly,
on 19th November 2012, the Commissioner delegated
his powers conferred upon him by the Standing
Committee, to Respondent No.4 Deputy Commissioner
(Development) to execute the concession agreement.
5(C).It is argued that as per Section 44
of the M.R.T.P. Act, "local body" is exempted from
seeking permission for development from planning
authority. The Corporation is "local body" and
thus is exempted. There is no need for the
Corporation to seek permission from the planning
authority. As per the terms and conditions of the
tender and the concession agreement, it is not
necessaryforConcessionairestoobtain
construction permission. The Concessionaires were
only required to prepare architectural and
structural design of the project and seek approval
of the Commissioner. Accordingly the plans were
submitted by them and they were duly approved by
Respondent No.2 Municipal Commissioner.
pil84.15
13
5(D).It is stated for Respondent Nos.2, 3
and 5 that in view of the concession agreement,
the period is of 48 months “from the date of
signing of agreement' or “the date of handing over
the site to the developer” or “the date of issue
of work order”, whichever is later. It is argued
for these Respondents that in June 2014
Concessionaires started construction as per the
mark outs given by the Municipal Engineers. There
is supervision of the Municipal Corporation over
the construction undertaken by the developer and
there is no violation of Development Control Rules
of the Corporation. The construction is thus not
illegal. The Concessionaires are doing the
construction on P.P.P. Basis and the Corporation
has not put in any funds and thus it cannot be
said that public funds are misused.
5(E).It is stated for Respondent Nos.2,3
and 5 that some tenants of the old market filed
pil84.15
14
Civil Suits before Civil Judge, Junior Division at
Nanded and had obtained status quo orders, which
came to be vacated when the temporary injunction
applications were rejected on 29th January 2015.
The tenants approached the High Court vide Writ
Petition No.11402 of 2014, which also came to be
disposed on 19th June 2015. The tenants agreed, in
the High Court, to shift to alternate
accommodation and thus it is stated that only
thereafter complete possession of the site could
be given to the Concessionaires.
DEFENCE AS PER RESPONDENT NOS. 6 & 7
6(A).Respondent Nos.6 and 7 have also
referred to regular civil suit which was filed by
the Petitioner to contend that the Petitioner
clearly had resorted to the alternative remedy
which he had, but withdrew the suit
unconditionally and thus he abandoned the claim
which he is now making in the Public Interest
pil84.15
15
Litigation. Reference is made by these Respondents
to the withdrawal purshis filed, to submit that
the suit was not withdrawn with permission to
resort to alternative remedy. Thus, according to
Concessionaires the present PIL should not be
entertained as these Respondents cannot be vexed
twice.
6(B).It is stated for the Concessionaires
that the entire project in question is executed by
and under the supervision of Municipal
Commissioner himself. The project is being
executed on behalf of the Corporation itself as an
agency or extended arm of the Corporation.
Referring to the claims made by the Petitioner, it
is argued that these Concessionaires participated
in the bid process and Standing Committee accepted
their bids and consequently the Commissioner
executed the agreement with regard to the
development plans. It is argued that even if the
period was to be calculated from 30th November
pil84.15
16
2012, the period of 48 months is still not over
and there is no foundation for the argument that
period of agreement is over and continuation of
the construction is illegal. Reference is made to
Clause 4.1.10 of the tender document to point out,
how commencement date is to be considered. The
same is as under:-
"4.1.10 "Commencement date" shall mean the
later date of the following:
. Date on which the concession agreement is
signed or
. The date of handing over possession of the
project site to the Concessionaire free of
encroachments and encumbrances or
. The date of issue of work order."
6(C).At the time of arguments, the learned
senior counsel for Respondent Nos.6 and 7 filed
copy of the communication of the Corporation dated
19th October 2015 (taken on record and marked "X")
pil84.15
17
to point out that the work site has been made
available to the Concessionaires free from all
encroachments and encumbrances on 27th July 2015
and thus the date of work order has been fixed as
27thJuly 2015. The learned senior counsel
submitted that as per Condition No.1.5 of the
tender document, it was the responsibility of the
Corporation to handover the project site within 60
days of signing of the Concession agreement, but
in the present matter, some of the tenants of the
Corporation filed four civil suits as mentioned in
the affidavit. Earlier the Civil Court passed
status quo orders and the Corporation was not able
to evict those tenants. Subsequently, the orders
came to be vacated and the applications were
rejected. Writ Petition No.11402 of 2014 filed by
the tenants was disposed after the tenants
undertook to vacate the premises within one month.
The High Court orders were passed on 19th June 2015
and thereafter the site became available free from
allencumbrancesandconsequentlythe
pil84.15
18
communication dated 19th October 2015 was issued
fixing the date of work order as 27th July 2015.
6(D).It is stated that the Concessionaires
are not liable for hardship premium policy as they
are still within the prescribed period. The
counsel submitted that the site was being
developed as per the agreement and the Corporation
continued to retain the right of ownership and
other rights in the complex. The learned counsel
referred to Clause 4.1.44 to submit that after the
development, the structure has to be handed over
to the Corporation free of cost. As per Clause
4.4.1.14 the Concessionaires will have no right
over the project after the end of concession
period. Reference was also made to Clause 4.4.1.16
to submit that the ownership rights of the site of
the project facilities are not transferred either
to the Concessionaires or to the occupants.
According to the learned senior counsel, the whole
project is being supervised by the Corporation
pil84.15
19
which continues to be the owner of the site and
the property developed continues to remain as that
of the Municipal Corporation. Reference was made
to Section 44 of the M.R.T.P. Act to argue that
the local body is exempted from applying for
permission. In the present matter, the
construction is of the Corporation building
itself, which is local body. As per the terms and
conditions of the agreement, it is not necessary
for Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 to obtain construction
permission. However, as per the terms and
conditions, architectural and structural designs
of the project facilities were submitted and they
have been approved by the Commissioner. The
counsel submitted that as per Section 152 of the
M.R.T.P. Act, in the corporation area the
Municipal Commissioner himself is the town
planning authority and having powers to grant
sanction to proposed construction under Section 44
of the M.R.T.P. Act. It is stated that when the
Concessionaires will complete the construction,
pil84.15
20
they will seek provisional completion certificate
as per Clause 4.4.4.5 of the concession agreement.
6(E).Learned counsel submitted that there
is no record of the Petitioner being social
worker. He has been set up to create hurdles in
the project. The concession agreement was executed
on 30th November 2012 and after about three years
the present Petition has been filed, which is
liable to be rejected. About 75% of the work is
already completed. Because of issuance of notice
in the present matter, which was widely made
public by the Petitioner, the Concessionaires have
not been able to get advance amount for bookings
which has heavily caused financial loss and loss
of good-will for these Respondents. The learned
senior counsel further tendered communication
dated 7th January 2016 (taken on record and marked
“Y”) to submit that out of abundant precaution,
the Commissioner has even approved the maps of the
construction in response to the request made by
pil84.15
21
the Concessionaires vide their letters dated 16th
September 2013 and 22nd December 2015.
FALLACY OF PETITION
7.The fallacy of the Petition brought and
arguments raised for the Petitioner gets exposed
when the same is juxtaposed with the defence of
the Respondents supported by record as we have
just done (supra). Bare reading of the above shows
that there is no substance in the Petition and
arguments as raised by the learned counsel for the
Respondents needs to be accepted.
8.Considering the record, we find that the
Municipal Corporation took the necessary
precautions for replacing the old structure with a
new building. The matter was placed before the
General Body on 30th January 2009 and resolution in
this regard was passed. Precautions were taken to
go in for feasibility report for redevelopment and
pil84.15
22
taking expert advise, steps to go into such Public
Private Partnership were taken. Record shows that
efforts were since before being made by the
Corporation by issuing tender notices which
ultimately bore fruits when notice was published
on the third occasion in newspaper Daily Lokmat
dated 10th February 2012. All this while the
Petitioner did not come forward to question how
such project could be gone into. The Corporation
there after, on receiving the tenders, finalized
the same in favour of Respondent Nos.6 and 7 and
Standing Committee in this regard adopted
Resolution No.93 dated 16th February 2012. The
General Body thereafter on 22nd August 2012,
directed the Commissioner to act upon the tender
and enter into agreements. Further steps have been
taken by Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Perusal of the
concession agreement filed by the Petitioner
discloses that the Corporation has taken
sufficient precautions with protective clauses
while entering into the agreement, in public
pil84.15
23
interest.
9.It is a matter of record that some
tenants created obstacles by going to the Civil
Court and the matter got ironed out after the High
Court took undertakings from the tenants to shift
to alternate accommodation. The objection raised
by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the
period is over and thus the further construction
is illegal, is, on the face of it, not tenable.
Even by mathematical calculations, even accepting
the date 30th November 2012 as basis, when the
Petition came to be filed, the period of 48 months
as mentioned in the agreement, was not over. This
is apart from the fact that agreement itself
prescribes as to how the commencement date will be
calculated as per Clause 4.1.10.
10.The objections raised by the Petitioner
regarding building plans and construction
permission also are liable to be rejected. Sub-
pil84.15
24
section (1) of Section 44 of the M.R.T.P. Act
reads as under:-
"44. Application for permission for development
(1) Except as otherwise provided by rules made
in this behalf, any person not being Central
or State Government or local authority
intending to carry out any development on any
land shall make an application in writing to
the Planning Authority for permission in such
form and containing such particulars and
accompanied by such documents, as may be
prescribed."
.We find force in the submission of the
learned senior counsel for Respondent Nos.6 and 7
that Section 44 of the Act does not apply to local
authority. The concession agreement Para 4 a)
reads as under:-
"4. The Concessionaire does hereby agree:
a) To duly execute and complete the Project in
pil84.15
25
all respect entirely at the cost of the
Concessionaire and strictly in accordance with
the approved designs, drawings and work
specifications under the technical control and
supervision of the NWCMCand within the time
limits specified therein."
Emphasis supplied.
11.The Concessionaires have filed copy of
approved plans, Exhibit R-4, to submit that the
Corporation has approved the designs and drawings.
The Respondents have submitted that the
construction being carried out is, as per the
designs settled and no Development Control Rules
are being violated.
12.The Petitioner is questioning the locus
of Respondent No.4 who has been made Respondent by
name. We need not go into the controversy raised
regarding the name of father or surname of
Respondent NO.4. The Respondent authorities have
not raised any such questions. The Commissioner
delegated his powers to Respondent NO.4 in his
pil84.15
26
capacity of Respondent No.3 to execute the
agreement. The copy of the order dated 19th
November 2012 has been filed on record. The
Respondents have relied on Section 72B of the
Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act which gives
authority to the Commissioner to delegate his
powers to the subordinate officers. We do not find
force in the submission of learned counsel for
Petitioner referring to Section 68(2) of the
Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, to
claim that the Commissioner required approval of
the Standing Committee. In the present matter, the
tender was approved by the Standing Committee vide
Exhibit RA-4 and the General Body had directed
the Commissioner to go into the development with
the Concessionaires as per Exhibit RA-5 and the
Municipal Commissioner himself issued acceptance
letter to the Concessionaires vide Exhibit RA-6
and Respondent No.3 getting authority vide letter
dated 19thNovember 2012, entered into the
agreement. Looking to all the procedures followed,
pil84.15
27
we do not find any force in objections raised to
the validity of the agreement executed.
13.We have gone through the Judgment in the
matter of Mahendra Baburao Mahadik, cited supra,
relied on by the learned counsel for the
Petitioner. That matter related to an individual
who sought permission for repairs and went into
construction of the premises. The facts are
clearly different. In the present matter it is
Corporation, a local body, which is itself
developing its own property after following
necessary procedure.
14.In the matter of Jal Mahal Resorts
Private Limited vs. K.P. Sharma and others,
reported in (2014) 8 Supreme Court Cases 804,
disputes were raised regarding public private
partnerships entered into by the authorities for
ecological restoration of Mansagar Lake and
architectural conservation and restoration/
pil84.15
28
preservation of 18th Century Jal Mahal Monument and
for development of tourism/recreational components
at the Lake precincts. It was observed in Para 137
as under:-
"137. From this, it is clear that although the courts are expected very often to enter into the technical and administrative aspects of the matter, it has its own limitations and in consonance with the theory and principle of separation of powers, reliance at least to some extent to the decisions of the State authorities, specially if it is based on the opinion of the experts reflected from the project report prepared by the technocrats, accepted by the entire hierarchy of the State administration, acknowledged, accepted and approved by one Government after the other, will have to be given due credence and weightage. In spite of this if the court chooses to overrule the correctness of such administrative decision and merits of the view of the entire body including the administrative, technical and financial experts by taking note of hair splitting submissions at the instance of a PIL petitioner without any evidence in support thereof, the PIL petitioners shall have to be put to strict proof and cannot be allowed to function as an extraordinary and extra-judicial ombudsmen questioning the entire exercise undertaken by an extensive body which include administrators, technocrats and financial experts.
pil84.15
29
In our considered view, this might lead to a friction if not collision among the three organs of the State and would affect the principle of governance ingrained in the theory of separation of powers....."
.It was further observed in Para 139 as
follows:-
139..... Therefore, the courts although would be justified in questioning a particular decision if illegality or arbitrariness is writ large on a particular venture, excessive probe or restraint on the activity of a State is bound to derail execution of an administrative decision even though the same might be in pursuance of a policy decision supported by other cogent materials like survey and search by a reliable expert agency of a State after which the State project or private and public partnership project is sought to be given effect to."
15. Looking to the above observations of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, when the present matter is
considered, we do not find that there is any
illegality or arbitrariness writ large requiring
interference by this Court. Assuming himself to
be Social Worker, Petitioner has jumped on to the
vehicle of P.I.L. and is clinging to tit - bits to
pil84.15
30
put spokes in the development taking place. The
objections being raised are in the nature of hair
splitting and more technical than driven by public
object. The same Petitioner, who is asking for
cancellation of the agreement and demolition of
structure, has relied on same agreement and prayed
that the Concessionaires be asked to pay the lease
amount, as according to him, the period of 48
months has come to an end.
16.The Petition is liable to be rejected on
the count of delay and laches also. The Petitioner
never objected to the project when the Corporation
was issuing public notices from before 10th
February 2012 and when the concession agreement
was entered into. When part of the construction
work has been done, the objections were raised.
The argument of the learned senior counsel for the
Concessionaires cannot be ignored that after
filing of the Petition and issue of notice, the
project was doubted and it affected these
pil84.15
31
Respondents in getting advance amount for bookings
leading to loss of finance and good-will. Looking
to the Petition, it does not appear to be in
public interest. It appears to be for oblique
reasons and thus the caution amount deposited by
the Petitioner would require to be forfeited.
substance in the Petition. The Public Interest
Litigation is dismissed with costs quantified at
Rupees Fifty Thousand, which shall be adjusted
from the caution money of Rupees Fifty Thousand
already deposited by the Petitioner in view of
order dated 29th September 2015. Rule stands
discharged, accordingly.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Municipal Corporation's execution of a Public Private Partnership agreement for commercial construction was illegal and unauthorized.
Whether the concessionaires were required to obtain construction permission under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.
Whether the PIL petitioner had locus standi given the delay in filing despite prior availability of record.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Balaji s/o Daulatrao Humbad
The State of Maharashtra
The Commissioner, Nanded Waghala City Municipal Corporation
Shri. Ratnakar s/o Kantrao Waghmare
Sanman Constructions (JV)
Jai Kedarnath Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.
R.M. Borde
A.I.S. Cheema
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