Disposed

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

Bombay HC19 Nov 2018PIL/201/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a PIL seeking removal of an illegal flyover and conveyor belt by a sugar factory over a road used by 100 persons. Court noted actions taken by authorities but quashed order due to exclusive removal power resting with Collector. Court directed respondents to take steps to avoid loss of life and property while acknowledging rights to seek regularization.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents to take appropriate steps at earliest to avoid loss to lives and properties; no specific interim relief granted for removal.

Shri. Suresh Annappa Gadge Vs the Renuka… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

jdk 4.cpil.201.13.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

PIL NO. 201 OF 2013

¶4

Shri. Suresh Annappa Gadge

¶5

.. Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The Renuka Sugars Ltd. and Ors.

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Mr. Manoj Shirsat I/b Nitin Patil Advocate for Petitioner

¶10

Mr. V.A. Sugdhare I/b Suryajeet Chavan Adv. for Respondent No.1

¶11

Ms. Prachi Tatake Adv. For Respondent No.2

¶12

Mr. C.M. Jadhav I/b Mr. S.A. Oak for Respondent No.3

¶13

Mr. P.P. Kakade AGP for Respondent Nos. 4 to 8

¶14

Mr. Vinayak Puranik, Legal Manager for Respondent No.1 present in Court

¶15

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

¶16

DATED : NOVEMBER 19, 2018

¶17

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

¶18

The Petitioner prays for following reliefs:

¶19

“(a) Be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other writ of like nature and thereby

¶20

1 of 7

¶21

jdk 4.cpil.201.13.doc

¶22

directing the respondent no.3 to 8 to remove illegal, unauthorized fly-over bridge constructed by the respondent no. 1 and 2 as early as possible;”

¶23

According to the Petitioner, Respondent No.1 is running a sugar factory which has erected a conveyor belt in cross section over the road which is dangerous. The erection has been done without seeking permissions from the competent authorities. The road is used by more than 100 persons including children. The Petitioner has raised many objections to the authorities but no action was taken. The Petitioner places reliance on certain photographs placed on record.

¶24

3. Affidavit-in-reply came to be filed by Rajendra

¶25

Balasaheb Patil, Deputy Engineer, PWD, Hatkanangale. In paragraphs 4, 10 and 11, the deponent has stated as under:

¶26

“4. With reference to para no.11, I say that the say of the Petitioner that he had informed to the Respondent No. 6 about the illegal flyover is

¶27

2 of 7

¶28

jdk 4.cpil.201.13.doc

¶29

true. However, it is not true that Respondent No.5 and 6 have not taken any action. I say that the Respondent No. 6 has issued notice dated 2.11.2011 to the Respondent No. 1 and 2 about the illegal flyover and also informed them to stop the working of carrier of bags and coal. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit-I is copy of the letter dated 2.11.2011 issued by this Respondent to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Similarly, Respondent No.5 has also issued a notice dated 13.3.2013 about illegal flyover, calling upon Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to forthwith remove the illegal flyover. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit-2 is copy of the letter dated 13.3.2013, addressed by Respondent No. 6 to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. I say that it is therefore, wrong to say that no action has been initiated by this Respondent against Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. However, as far as removal of illegal flyover is concerned, this Respondent has no authority, as it is the authority of the Collector for removal of illegal flyover under the provision of Section 50 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.

¶30

With reference to Para 22 of the Petition, I say that the permission for regularization cannot be granted only on the ground of construction and but also taking into

¶31

3 of 7

¶32

jdk 4.cpil.201.13.doc

¶33

consideration the provisions of Bombay Highway Act, Ribbon Development Act and Government Resolution dated 9^th March, 2001. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit-”4” is the copy of Government Resolution dated 9^th March, 2001. I say that it is true that the construction of flyover is illegal and this Respondent has not regularized the construction.

¶34

With reference to para 26 of the Petition, I say that on 2.4.2013, the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a Civil Suit No. 127 of 2013 before the Hon'ble Civil Judge Senior Division, Ichalkaranji praying for not to remove the flyover in question and the matter is pending till today. I say that it is true that the Respondent No.1 encroached on the Government land and violated the provisions of Bombay Highways Act and Ribbon Development Act. However, the power of removal of unauthorized construction is exclusively of the Collector, Kolhapur, who has power to remove the encroachment”.

¶35

The counsel for the Petitioner submits that the petition is pending since 2013. Though suit is filed by Respondent No.1 in respect of certain communication issued by Public Works Department and Collector, Civil

¶36

4 of 7

¶37

jdk 4.cpil.201.13.doc

¶38

Court has not passed any order of interim relief in favour of Respondent No.1. Therefore, it is the high time for the authorities to take action in larger public interest by removing the conveyor belt which was erected in cross section over the road.

¶39

On behalf of Respondent No.1, affidavit-in-reply is placed on record. Counsel for Respondent No.1 submits that without prejudice to the rights and contentions raised in the civil suit, the Respondent No.1 is planning to expand the factory premises whereby the Bagasse system would be shifted to one side of the factory. On the locus of the Petitioner, the counsel submitted that the Petitioner contested election of the Managing Committee of the Respondent No.1 – society. The Petition is not filed in a true public interest.

¶40

The learned AGP relied on the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of Public Works Department and submits that the State authorities would look into the matter.

¶41

We have perused the record placed before us

¶42

5 of 7

¶43

jdk 4.cpil.201.13.doc

¶44

and affidavits filed.

¶45

Though it was submitted by the counsel for Respondent No.1 that the subject road is not a public road, nonetheless it is being used by the persons who are working within factory and by the family members of the factory employees. It is an internal road constructed for the benefit of family members of the workers who are in employment of the sugar factory.

¶46

Assuming that the said road is a private road being used by persons engaged in manufacturing of sugar, still if certain permissions are required from the competent authorities, those permissions must be sought. If the competent authorities find that the erection of conveyor belt over the road would be dangerous to human habitation and is required to be shifted, then, necessary directions be issued and steps be taken accordingly.

¶47

In the alternative, counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 submitted that they have specific plan to expand and shift the Bagasse unit to one side of the

¶48

6 of 7

¶49

jdk 4.cpil.201.13.doc

¶50

factory. In case of such a plan is submitted, the Respondent No.1 shall take steps after taking necessary permissions from the competent authorities.

¶51

We direct the Respondents to take appropriate steps at the earliest so that there is no loss caused to the lives and properties of the persons passing through the said area.

¶52

The counsel for the Petitioner submits that in case the Bagasse unit is to be shifted, it should be shifted at the earliest and the Petitioner will not take any objection to the shifting of Bagasse unit.

¶53

12. PIL is disposed of in above terms.

¶54

M.S.KARNIK, J. CHIEF JUSTICE

¶55

kandarkar

¶56

7 of 7

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Suresh Annappa Gadge v. the Renuka Sugars Ltd, Ganganagar, Ichalkaranji 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

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.

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. Shirish Chimanrao Bhujbal Vs Pune Municipal Corporation, and Anr.