Disposed

Shri. Shirish Chimanrao Bhujbal v. Pune Municipal Corporation, and Anr.

Bombay HC19 Nov 2018PIL/143/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Public Interest Litigation filed for directing widening of a road to 12 meters by removing encroachment. The Court acknowledged the petition and directed the Corporation to take an appropriate decision on road widening considering traffic conditions and the Development Plan, before disposing of the matter.

What did the court decide?

Respondent Corporation to take an appropriate decision on widening the road and removal of encroachment as soon as possible.

Shri. Shirish Chimanrao Bhujbal Vs Pune Municipal… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

jdk 3.cpil.143.13.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

PIL NO. 143 OF 2013

¶4

Shri. Shirish Chimanrao Bhujbal .. Petitioner Vs. Pune Municipal Corporation Shivajinagar, Pune and Anr. .. Respondents

¶5

Mr. A.V. Anturkar Senior Advocate I/b S.B. Deshmukh Advocate for Petitioner

¶6

Mr. Abhijit Kulkarni Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2

¶7

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL, CHIEF JUSTICE & M.S.KARNIK, J.

¶8

DATED : NOVEMBER 19, 2018

¶9

ORAL ORDER [PER NARESH H. PATIL, C.J. ]:

¶10

The Petitioner has filed this petition in the year 2013. The Petitioner prays for direction to Respondent – Corporation for taking steps that the entire road from Alankar Police Chowki to Naik Bridge be made 12 meter wide by removing the encroachment.

¶11

It is submitted that due to encroachment on the

¶12

1 of 4

¶13

jdk 3.cpil.143.13.doc

¶14

road, at some points, the road width has become less than 12 metres which is causing inconvenience to the trafÏc and people residing in surrounding areas. Certain photographs are placed on record by the Petitioner in support of his contention.

¶15

During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner's land was also acquired for widening of the road.

¶16

The Respondent – Corporation filed afÏdavit in reply. The reply is filed by Shri. Prashant Waghmare, City Engineer, Pune Municipal Corporation, Pune. The deponent states in paragraphs 3 and 4 as under:

¶17

“3. I say that Petition is filed without obtaining relevant information from the ofÏce of the PMC and is filed on the basis of mere presumptions and assumptions. It is matter of record that as per Sanctioned Development Plan, the DP road between Alankar Police Chowki to Naik Bridge is shown to be 20 meter width. I say that since PMC was contemplating construction of the said DP road and therefore PMC had issued notice dated 22.02.2006 to the Petitioner

¶18

2 of 4

¶19

jdk 3.cpil.143.13.doc

¶20

herein. In the year 2009 PMC had issued tender for construction of road and same was published in the daily newspaper Lokmat. However as of today no construction of the DP Road has been carried out.

¶21

I say that Petition proceeds on the presumption that since tender notice was issued and therefore road has to be of 12 Meter wide. I say that, however pursuant to the publication of tender, no construction of road was carried out. Petition further makes assertion regarding existence of the encroachment on the 20 Meter wide DP road however no detail particulars are given. I say that the existing road is of 5 Meter width in between Girija Shankar Vihar and Tara Residency however same is because the DP road is yet to be constructed in full width. That does not necessarily mean that there is encroachment at particular point. Invoking writ Jurisdiction without laying concrete foundation is not sustainable in law.”

¶22

The counsel for the Corporation submits that subject road is the proposed DP road. Though substantial portion of the road is constructed, the entire development of the road is to take place after the DP is finalized and or

¶23

3 of 4

¶24

kandarkar

¶25

jdk 3.cpil.143.13.doc

¶26

Corporation takes an appropriate decision in respect of the widening of the road and removal of the encroachment.

¶27

The Corporation would take appropriate decision as early as possible in the larger interest of the people residing in the area considering the trafÏc condition, in accordance with law. While taking such decision, the Development Plan of the City shall also be taken into consideration.

¶28

7. PIL is disposed of.

¶29

M.S.KARNIK, J. CHIEF JUSTICE

¶30

4 of 4

Shri. Shirish Chimanrao Bhujbal v. Pune Municipal Corporation, and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Shirish Chimanrao Bhujbal v. Pune Municipal Corporation, and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Navi Mumbai Environment Preservation Society and Anr. Vs Ministry of Environment, through Secretary, Dept of Environment and Ors.

Vinod Subhash Thorat and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, the Addl. Chief Secretary and Ors.

Valmik Pandharinath Wakchaure and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dilip Baban Kate Vs the Union of India, the Ministry of Defence and Ors.

Perumal Chinna Thambi Vs the State of Maharashtra and 9 Ors.

Govind Gulab Deokate Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Madhukar Muralidhar Nazare Vs State of Maharashtra through Gp and Anr.

Shri. Sachin Tanaji Jadhav Vs M/S. P.S.K. Infrastructure and Projects Ltd. and Ors.

Bhamini G. Keni and 9 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Nilesh Jaykumar Desai Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Social Justice Dept. and Ors.

Yogesh Bansi Shinde Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage through Mrs Shveta Kothavale Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Urban Land Development Dept. and Anr.

Shri. Suresh Annappa Gadge Vs the Renuka Sugars Ltd, Ganganagar, Ichalkaranji and Ors.

Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage through Mrs Shveta Kothavale Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Urban Land Development Dept. and Anr.