Disposed

Vijay Kisan Shinde v. the Commissioner Thane Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Nov 2017PIL/100/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bengaluru High Court dismissed the petitioner's PIL on the grounds that he was a real estate agent and lacked public standing. The court directed the Thane Municipal Corporation to complete penalty and regularization proceedings within three months before disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Municipal Corporation to complete penalty and regularization proceedings within three months. Petition otherwise disposed of with no order as to costs.

Vijay Kisan Shinde Vs the Commissioner Thane… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

SKC

¶2

10-PIL-100-17

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 100 OF 2017

¶5

Vijay Kisan Shinde	..	Petitioner
versus
The Commissioner, Thane
Municipal Corporation & Ors.	..	Respondents

¶6

Mr. Sandeep Salunkhe for Petitioner.

¶7

Mr. Chetan Kapadia with Mr. Nikhil Ranadive for Respondent Nos. 4 & 5. Mrs. M. P. Thakur – AGP for State.

¶8

CORAM: DR. MANJULA CHELLUR, CJ. & M.S. SONAK, J.

¶9

DATE : 16 NOVEMBER 2017

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

1] Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

2] The petitioner, by this litigation which is purported to be styled as a

¶13

public interest litigation seeks the following reliefs :

¶14

(a) To take action against illegal constructions alleged to have been undertaken by the respondent no. 4;

¶15

(b) Appoint an inquiry committee for investigation into the alleged illegal constructions and fraud committed by the respondent no. 4;

1 of 3

SKC

10-PIL-100-17

3] In the petition, several interim reliefs have also been applied for i.e. one of them being to restrain the respondent no. 4 from handing over possession of certain apartments or space to any third parties.

¶21

4] In the petition, the petitioner has stated that he is a public spirited person and a social worker committed to fight for the betterment of the society.

¶22

5] Upon a query from the court however, the learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that the petitioner is a real estate agent. This fact was never disclosed in the petition. Upon a further query as to the kind of social work allegedly undertaken by the petitioner, the reply was quite vague. It was submitted that affidavit will be filed to explain this position. However, such position, should have been explained in the first instance.

¶23

6] The petitioner has no history of any social work or public spirit. The petitioner has instituted a petition against a particular developer, when admittedly, there are several developments taking place in Thane Municipal limits. In such a situation, the petitioner does not inspire any confidence and therefore we do not deem it safe or appropriate to entertain the present public interest litigation at his behest. The pleadings are mostly vague and directions are applied to investigate in the matter.

¶24

7] In respect of relief of seeking recovery of penalty and regularization, there is some material placed on record. If the proceedings for levy of penalty and regularization charges have not yet been taken to its logical conclusion, then, we direct the Municipal Corporation to do so by adhering to the procedure prescribed under the law. The exercise may be completed within a reasonable period of not more than three months from today.

2 of 3

SKC

10-PIL-100-17

8] With the aforesaid direction, the petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶29

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

¶30

chandka

¶31

3 of 3

Vijay Kisan Shinde v. the Commissioner Thane Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kisan Shinde v. the Commissioner Thane Municipal Corporation 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

New Pushtikar Chsl and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Sapan Shrivastava and Anr. Vs General Manager Central Railway and 3 Ors.

Mukesh S/O Ramchandr Rajput Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Surendra Vaman Dhawale Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue Dept and Ors.

Deepak Suryakant Lande Vs the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Mahendra Lorik Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra through Health and Urban Dept and Ors.

Mr. Rahul Lahu Choudhari Vs Union of India through Principal Secretary and Ors.

Milan Vasant Mhatre Vs State of Maharashtra

Shri. Babu Khandu Kad (Since Deceased through Lrs.) Vs the Divisional Commissioner, Pune and Ors.

M/S. Prisha Stone , through Its Authorised Signatory Viral Vishnu Thakkar Vs the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board and Ors.

M/S. Shri. Vigsons Aggregates Vs the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board and Ors.

Mr. Nehal S/O. Pravin Chandra Tanna Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Janhit Manch and Ors. Vs Hon'Ble Minister for Information Broadcasting and Culture and Ors. and Harminder B Arora and 21 Ors.

Shankar Dhondiba Lande and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Ministry of Revenue and Forest and Ors.