Petitioner sought directions for a comprehensive survey to identify municipal plan violations and provision of public facilities. The court held reliefs were vague and details undisclosed, dismissing the PIL.
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.
SKC
11-PIL-101-17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 101 OF 2017
| Nikhil S. Doiphode | .. | Petitioner |
|---|---|---|
| versus | ||
| The State of Maharashtra & Ors. | .. | Respondents |
Dr. Suneet Gupta for Petitioner. Mr. V. N. Sagave – AGP for State.
CORAM: DR. MANJULA CHELLUR, CJ. & M.S. SONAK, J.
DATE : 16 NOVEMBER 2017
P.C.:
1] Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2] By this purported public interest litigation, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs :
“a. The Honourable Court direct the Respondents to expeditiously conduct a comprehensive survey within the municipal limits of Respondent No. 3, so as to identify all violations of the sanctioned Development Plan, and to submit the list thereof before this Honourable Court, at the earliest;
b. The Honourable Court issue directions as it may deem fit in the matter to rectify the above violations of the sanctioned Development Plan;
c. The Honourable Court issue directions as it may deem suitable to ensure provision of the necessary public facilities and utilities to the citizens living within the municipal limits of Respondent No. 3, as per the provisions of the Development Plan, and as may be deemed necessary by the Honourable Court under Article 21 of the Constitution of India; and
1 of 2
SKC
11-PIL-101-17
d. The Honourable Court pass any other suitable and equitable order as it may consider necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
3] From the aforesaid, it is quite clear that the reliefs applied for are extremely vague and too widely worded. The petitioner has not disclosed any details and has also not impleaded the alleged violaters as parties. Even the grounds in the petition are totally vague and of a general nature.
4] In these circumstances, we are unable to entertain the present petition as a public interest litigation.
5] The petition is therefore dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(M. S. SONAK, J.) CHIEF JUSTICE
chandka
2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has sufficiently disclosed details and impleaded alleged violators to support the public interest litigation petition.
Nikhil S. Doiphode
State of Maharashtra
Dr. Manjula Chellur
M. S. Sonak
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
