High Court dismissed the public interest litigation at the threshold. The court held that the petitioners failed to provide adequate, vague, and unfounded material to substantiate allegations of oblique motive regarding the proposed road construction and tender process.
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.
pil112.18
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.112 OF 2018 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION (ST.) NO.29507 OF 2018
| 1. | Sanjay s/o Madharao Patil, Age: 43 years, Occu: Agril, R/o. Bharvas, Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon |
|---|---|
| 2. | Kishor s/o Ramesh Patil, Age: 42 years, Occu: Agril, R/o. Bharvas, Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon |
| 3. | Babanrao s/o Pundlik Patil, Age: 72 years, Occu: Agril, R/o. Loan Pancham, Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon |
| 4. | Devidas s/o Sakharam Patil, Age: 68 years, Occu: Agril, R/o. Zadi, Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon |
| 5. | Mango s/o Omkar Rathod, Age: 70 years, Occu: Agril, R/o. Loan Charam Tanda, Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon |
| 6. | Shivaji s/o Mansaram Patil, Age: 48 years, Occu: Agril, R/o. Eklahare, Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon ..PETITIONERS |
| VERSUS | |
| 1. | The Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways Transport Bhavan, 1-Parliament Street, New Delhi |
(2) |
pil112.18 | |
|---|---|---|
| 2. | The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk, Madan Kama Road, Mumbai 400032 |
|
| 3. | The Chief Engineer, Public Works Region, Nashik, Dist. Nashik |
|
| 4. | Superintending Engineer, Public Works Circle, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon |
|
| 5. | Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Amalner, Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon |
|
| 6. | Chintaman s/o Sahebrao Patil, Age: 47 years, Occu: Advocate, R/o Padse, Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon |
|
| 7. | Nimba s/o Chindha Patil, Age: 49 years, Occu: Agril, R/o Padse, Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon |
|
| 8. | Ulkesh s/o Shantilal Patil, Age: 40 years, Occu: Agril, R/o Chaubari, Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon |
|
| 9. | Yeshwant s/o Vedu Kadhare, Age: 50 years, Occu: Agril, R/o Chaubari, Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon |
|
| 10. | Amruit s/o Shalik Patil, Age: 35 years, Occu: Agril, R/o Kharde, Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon |
|
| 11. | Sanjay s/o Dhoman Mistari, Age: 40 years, Occu: Agril, R/o Kharde, Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon |
(3)
pil112.18
| 12. | Pravin s/o Dayaram Patil, Age: 40 years, Occu: Agril, R/o Wasare, Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon |
|
|---|---|---|
| 13. | Anil s/o Waman Patil, Age: 50 years, Occu: Agril, R/o Wasare, Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon |
|
| 14. | Dagubai w/o Himmatrao Thakare, Age: 55 years, Occu: Sarpanch & Agril, R/o Dhanora, Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon |
|
| 15. | Kishor s/o Bhaidas Patil, Age: 51 years, Occu: Agril, R/o Khedi, Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon |
|
| 16. | Anil s/o Santosh Patil, Age: 50 years, Occu: Agril, R/o Khedi, Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon |
|
| 17. | Nilesh s/o Shivaji Bagul, Age: 35 years, Occu: Sarpanch & Agril, R/o Jaitpeer, Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon |
|
| 18. | Sandip s/o Ramesh Patil, Age: 50 years, Occu: Agril, R/o Jaitpeer, Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon |
|
| 19. | Fattelal s/o Arjun Patil, Age: 55 years, Occu: Agril, R/o Eklahare, Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon |
|
| 20. | Madhukar s/o Sahebrao Patil, Age: 60 years, Occu: Agril, R/o Eklahare, Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon |
..RESPONDENTS |
pil112.18
(4)
Mr P. B. Patil, Advocate for petitioners; Mr R. R. Bangar, A.S.G.I. for respondent No.1; Mr S. Y. Mahajan, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.2 to 5; Mr Amol Sawant, Advocate for interveners - respondents no.6 to 21
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND MANISH PITALE, JJ.
DATE : 26th September, 2018
ORAL ORDER:
Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respective parties.
pil112.18
(5)
a response received by petitioner no.1 against his query under the Right to Information Act. Learned Counsel submits that information sought for was in relation to the proposed extension of road. Mr Patil invited our attention to clause (1) of the communication dated 15th January, 2018 (Exh.B) which refers to the information provided and it reads that the information sought for is, under which title the road, namely, Bharvas Betavad Sindkheda was prior to one year and then the information sought for is about the extension of road and about certain changes if effected by the State Government under its discretion for extension of the State Highway. To this query, the information provided is, as per the records the road Bharvas Betavad Sindkheda is a State Highway No.6 and this is as per the road development plan of year 2001-2021. Perusal of clause (2) of the said communication further shows that an information was sought for in respect of the policy of the State Government for conversion of the said road. To this query, the information was provided that in principal (emphasis supplied) a permission is granted to covert the State Highway into a National Highway. Learned Counsel then invited our attention to the document placed on record at page 28 to submit that there is a State Highway No.6. At a distance from the State Highway, the railway line is shown in the map. It is stated that this track is from Padse Railway Station till level crossing 4/00. Then there is also a proposed way which is presumably an access from one place, namely, from Phata 57/100 to Phata 44/00 as well as Phata 13/100 to Phata 0/00. There is
a reference to the words, namely, "ररमर" and "पजजमर" i.e. the State Road and
pil112.18
(6)
the Main District Road. Then Mr Patil submits that only to suit the purpose and an oblique motive, the State authorities floated a tender for conversion of road.
pil112.18
(7)
(MANISH PITALE, J.)
(PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)
amj
Digitally signed Anant by Anant Manohar Joshi Manohar Date: 2018.09.28 Joshi 17:47:22 +0530
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to entertain the public interest litigation challenging the tender for road conversion.
Whether the allegations of oblique motive are supported by adequate material to sustain the PIL.
Sanjay s/o Madharao Patil and Others
The Union of India
The State of Maharashtra
Prasanna B. Varale
Manish Pitale
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
