Disposed

Anil S/O Sharadchandra Mardikar v. State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Ministry of Rural Development and Water, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC6 Sept 2017PIL/74/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL, the High Court addressed the non-compliance of mandatory Rain Water Harvesting systems in Nagpur despite it being compulsory since 2009. The Court directed the Nagpur Municipal Corporation to examine violated plans and initiate action against violators under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966, within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Nagpur Municipal Corporation to examine cases of non-compliance and initiate action against violators as per Section 56 of the Act within three months.

Anil S/O Sharadchandra Mardikar Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

0609pil74.16

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR .

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 74 OF 2016

¶5

(Anil s/o Sharadchandra Mardikar vs. State of Maharashtra thr. its Secretary, Ministry of Rural Development and Water Conservation Department & Ors.)

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,_____________________________________________________________________________ appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders.

¶7

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ. SEPTEMBER 06, 2017.

¶8

Heard Shri A.S. Jaiswal, learned Senior Advocate with Shri N.C. Phadnis, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri D.P. Thakare, learned Additional GP for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Shri S.M. Puranik, learned counsel for respondent No. 3.

¶9

Shri Puranik, learned counsel submits that he has drafted affidavit which shows that after 2009, while sanctioning Building Plan, compliance with Rain Water Harvesting system has been made compulsory.

¶10

The learned Senior Advocate points out that after amendment in 2009, it is mandatory and though in Building Plan such compliance is insisted upon and sanctioned, practically it has not been implemented thereafter. He makes a grievance that no deterrent action has been taken and hence all the owners, who are getting plans sanctioned, are avoiding to have said system at place.

¶11

¶12

0609pil74.16

¶13

According to learned Senior Advocate, in about 145 such matters, out of 191 sanctioned plans, there are violations and Nagpur Municipal Corporation is attempting to collect fine only @ Rs.1000/- per 100 square meters.

¶14

Shri Puranik, learned counsel submits that fine amount is taken as per directions of the State Government.

¶15

We do not and cannot in this Public Interest Litigation, at this stage, go into any specific case. However, it appears that in most of the matters, though the compliance with rain water harvesting has been insisted upon, and is expected, it has not been done. It is, therefore, apparent that Nagpur Municipal Corporation, in this situation, has to take appropriate steps. As the rain water harvesting has not been provided for, it is felt that in such cases, the owners may not have obtained occupancy certificate or completion certificate. The NMC, therefore, can for occupying building, without such occupancy certificate or completion certificate, initiate necessary action as per the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Under Section 56 of the Act, it may initiate necessary action for removal of even authorized structures.

¶16

Hence, we direct the Nagpur Municipal Corporation to examine each such case and to proceed against violators as per law. The necessary steps in this respect shall be initiated within three months from today.

¶17

¶18

0609pil74.16

¶19

With these directions and with liberty to the petitioner to approach again, if grievance survives even thereafter, we dispose of the present Public Interest Litigation. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶20

JUDGE JUDGE

¶21

*GS.

Anil S/O Sharadchandra Mardikar v. State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Ministry of Rural Development and Water, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil S/O Sharadchandra Mardikar v. State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Ministry of Rural Development and Water, Mumbai and Others

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

Maharashtra Kamgar Manch Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Milind S. Oka Vs the Union of India through the Secretary and Anr.

Vinay Balasaheb Ghule Vs Manjari Budruk Grampanchayat through Sarpanch and Ors.

Shri. Jitendra P. Maru Vs Administrator of Daman, Dadar and Nagar Haveli and Ors.

Panshet Purgrast Samittee Vs the State of Maharashtra

Smt. Maneesha Rote Vs Divisional Forest Officer and Ors.

Maruti Parshuram Shedge Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Dept of Rural Development and Ors.

Smt. Maneesha Rote Vs Divisional Forest Officer and Ors.

M/S Ajanta Minerals, through Managing Partner, Shri. Rajendra Purushottam Tank, Nagpur Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Department of Industries, Energy and Labour, Mumbai

Subhash S/O Ganpat Dandge Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Mumbai and Others

Pandurang Bhaurao Pawar Vs Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Commi. Thr. Member Secretary, Amravati and Another

Madhukar Laxmanrao Pagrut Vs Union of India through Ministry of Agricultural and Cooperation, New Delhi and Others

Udaysing Narsing Hajari Vs Collecor, Nagpur and Others

Lalsing S/O. Udaypalsing Thakur Vs National Highway Authority of India, through Its Project Officer and Others