Petitioner challenged the construction of government offices at a different village than sanctioned location. Court noted that original site lacked land and construction was complete, resulting in dismissal of the writ petition without costs.
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.
{1}
920 sr. no..odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3322 OF 2015
SUREGAON VIKAS BA BACHAV KRUTI SAMMITTI, AHMEDNAGAR AND OTHERS VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
... Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. R.R. Karpe AGP for Respondents: Mr. B.V. Virdhe.
CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA & K.K. SONAWANE, JJ. DATE :12TH JULY , 2016.
PER COURT:
1] Mr. Karpe, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents are not implementing the sanction permission in respect of the construction of building for Circle and Talathi office at Village Suregaon, Taluka Kopargaon. Though the permission is accorded to construct the said offices in village Surewadi, still, the work of aforesaid offices is commenced at village Kolpewadi, that is a different village. According to him hardship would be caused to the residents of village Surewadi. Even otherwise, the construction of the aforesaid offices at village Kolpewadi would be illegal and against the sanctioned permission.
2] We have heard the learned AGP. An affidavit is filed to the effect that as adequate government land was not available at village Surewadi, the Government was constrained to take decision to shift the Tahsil and Circle Offices at village Kolpewadi, which is abutting the village Surewadi and is at a distance of 500 meters only. It is further submitted
{2} 920 sr. no..odt
that the construction of the building for the said offices is already complete. As the construction of the said offices is already complete, the request made in the petition now cannot be considered.
3] In view of the above, Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
No costs.
[K.K. SONAWANE] [S.V. GANGAPURWALA] JUDGE JUDGE.
grt/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the construction of offices at a different village than the sanctioned location should be entertained given the construction is already complete and land was unav
Suregaon Vikas Ba Bachav Kruti Sammitti, Ahmednanagar and Others
State of Maharashtra and Others
S.V. Gangapurwala
K.K. Sonawane
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
