Dismissed

Jiten Jayprakash Phondke v. State of Maharashtra and 7 Ors.

Bombay HC25 Aug 2016PIL/91/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a PIL under Article 226 seeking writs for inquiry, action against erring officers, and resumption of public playground land allegedly given to a private developer. Court noted the structure was demolished and land restored, dismissing the PIL as moot after seven years.

What did the court decide?

Disposed of by observing the land was restored and no further direction could be granted after seven years.

Jiten Jayprakash Phondke Vs State of Maharashtra and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

PIL. 91-15

¶2

VPH

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. 91 OF 2015

¶5

Jiten Jayprakash Phondke … Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

¶6

***

¶7

Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra, for the Petitioner.

¶8

Ms. Trupti Puranik, for the Respondent – BMC.

¶9

Ms. Deepali Patankar i/b Purnima Kantharia, Government Pleader for the Respondent - State

¶10

¶11

CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & Smt. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 25, 2016

¶12

PC.

¶13

1 By this PIL which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner is seeking following reliefs:

¶14

“(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order direction of the similar nature directing the Respondents to produce

¶15

all the records in respect of the said land and bearing

¶16

1 / 4

¶17

PIL. 91-15

¶18

CTS no. 368 and 294 of Village Mogra, TalukaAndheri, M.S.D., reserved for playground and Primary Municipal School, showing the nature and authority of Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 to use and occupy the said plot of land.

¶19

(b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ, order or direction of the similar nature, directing the Respondent No. 2 to forthwith hold a detailed inquiry in delay of furnishing the information and also avoiding to furnish the information and to determine the responsibility and take the appropriate action action against the erring officers in compliance of the order dated 25.8.2014 passed by the State Information commission and submit the report of compliance to this Hon'ble Court.

¶20

(c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue the Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ, order or direction of the similar nature, directing the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to resume back the physical possession of the said land and put the said land for the use of public for the purposes the same has been reserved under the provisions of MRTP Act, 1966.

¶21

(d) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue the Writ

¶22

2 / 4

¶23

PIL. 91-15

¶24

of Mandamus or any other Writ, order or direction of the similar nature, directing the Respondent No. 2 to hold an inquiry that who allowed the Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 to use and occupy the said plot of land and why the permission came to granted to the private parties i.e. Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 to use the said plot against the settled law that the public plots cannot be allowed to be used by private parties and after the due inquiry the appropriate action be taken against the erring officers.

¶25

(e) ad-interim and interim reliefs in terms of prayer (b), (c), and (d) above be granted.

¶26

(f) Costs of the petition be awarded; and

¶27

(g) Such other and further and relevant reliefs be granted as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the present case.”

¶28

The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Corporation has

¶29

given the public playground to a Developer for construction of some temporary structure.

¶30

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation, on instructions, makes a statement that the said structure has been demolished, and has submitted that the ground has already

¶31

3 / 4

¶32

PIL. 91-15

¶33

been restored to its original position. The photographs, showing restoration of the ground to its original position, are taken on record. In view of this statement, nothing remains in the PIL.

¶34

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that a direction may be given to the Corporation to take action against the Developer. We are informed that the said structure came into existence about seven years ago. We are of the view that since the structure has already been demolished and the ground has been restored to its position, the Petitioner cannot now after seven years seek the directions, which he has sought in this PIL. PIL is therefore disposed of.

¶35

Vinayak Halemath

¶36

4 / 4

Jiten Jayprakash Phondke v. State of Maharashtra and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jiten Jayprakash Phondke v. State of Maharashtra and 7 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

Mera Haq Mera Adhikar(Ngo) Vs Mhada-Executive Engineer (Goregaon) and 2 Ors.

Mangal Vijay Raut Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Rajendra Purushottam Phanse and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Chief Secretary, General Admn. Dept. and Ors.

Hindu Janajagruti Samiti, by Shri. Shivaji Girijappa Vatkar Vs Union of India, through Ministry of Culture and Ors.

Dr. Noorjehan Safia Niaz and 1 Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors..

Nitesh Mohanlal Doshi Vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Other

Manubhai Paragji Vashi Vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and 5 Ors.

Mr. Prakash Chimanlal Sheth Vs the Union of India through Ministry of Home Affairs (Mha) and Ors.

Omnimbus Industrial Development Corporation Vs National Building Construction Corporation Ltd.

Omnimbus Industrial Development Corporation Vs National Building Construction Corporation Ltd.

Bombay Processonrs Vs Nilima Rajiv Bhansali (Nee Nilima Hasmukhbhai Javeri

Radheshyam Brahmadev Mishra Vs Chief Secretary,State of Maharastra and Ors.

Manjula Arvind Thakkar Vs Sharekhan Limited

elbee services limited and 2 Ors. Vs tata motos Ltd.