Dismissed

Anil Gayaprasadji Mishra v. Nagpur Improvement Trust, through Its Chairman, Nagpur and Others

Bombay HC26 Sept 2018PIL/4/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Public Interest Litigation challenging unauthorized construction in Nagpur, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench rejected the petition as wholly frivolous. The Court held that entertaining such petitions would open floodgates for busybodies. A statutory notice under Section 115 of the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act was cited as having been served prior to filing.

What did the court decide?

The petition was rejected and deemed to be wholly frivolous. Costs deposited by the petitioner were directed to be given to the Committee for Govt. Shelter Homes.

Anil Gayaprasadji Mishra Vs Nagpur Improvement… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Public Interest Litigation No.4 of 2018 [Anil Gayaprasadji Mishra Vs. Nagpur Improvement Trust, Nagpur, & others]

¶3

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

¶4

Mr. A.P. J. P. Dubey, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr. S. M. Puranik, Adv., for respondent nos. 1 to 10. Mr. S. P. Bhandarkar, Adv., for respondent no.7. Mr. Ghodeswar, AGP for respondent no.11.

¶5

CORAM : B. R. GAVAI AND ROHIT B. DEO, JJ.

¶6

DATE : 26^th September, 2018

¶7

The petition has been filed by the petitioner who claims to be RTI activist and a social worker, contending therein that the respondent nos. 6 and 7 have carried out unauthorized construction.

¶8

In the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.1 – Nagpur Improvement Trust, it has been stated that most of the construction made by the said respondents was in accordance with the Building Plans that are

¶9

¶10

sanctioned by the Nagpur Improvement Trust. It has further been stated that a part of the construction of the said respondent no.6 was found to be unauthorized and an action has been taken for removal of said unauthorized construction. It has further been stated that the construction which has been made by the said respondents is liable to be regularized under the Gunthewari Act by taking Development Charges at Rs. 16/- per sq. ft.

¶11

The petitioner is a resident of Umrer Road and has filed the present petition claiming the same to be in public interest, alleging that the construction by the said respondents at Shantinagar which is an area situated between Bhandara Road and Kamptee Road is unauthorized and illegal. The distance between the area where the petitioner resides and the unauthorized construction which is sought to be brought in question before this Court by the present Public Interest Litigation Petition is, on the admission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, between five to six kilometers.

¶12

No doubt that the requirements of locus have been diluted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment in the case of S.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India & another [1981 (Supp) SCC 87]. The requirement of locus is not insisted where the marginalized sections of the society on account of a variety of compulsions like economic, social etc. are not in a position to espouse

¶13

¶14

their cause and as such not only a petition but a letter at the behest of the third party espousing the cause of marginalized sections of the society is permitted by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

¶15

However, if a PIL filed by a litigant invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, who resides in one area, for objecting construction in other area of the town is allowed to be entertained by this Court, the Court would be opening floodgates for such litigations and it would be permitting the busybodies to roam in the city and find out which construction is unauthorized or illegal, and file Public Interest Litigation Petitions. If such Public Interest Litigations are entertained, it would also amount to permitting such busybodies to file petitions for oblique motives. The very purpose for which the requirement of locus has been diluted by the Apex Court would stand frustrated.

¶16

If the construction was really objectionable, a resident in the nearby locality could have taken recourse to the law. The Competent Authorities were bound to take action of such representation being made to the Authorities. In case of a failure of the authorities, such a litigant could have knocked the doors of this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, we do not find that any public interest is involved in such a matter.

¶17

¶18

Another interesting fact that is to be noted is that prior to filing of the petition, the petitioner had given a statutory notice of seven days under Section 115 of the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act to the Nagpur Improvement Trust.

¶19

It is further to be noted that the Right to Information Act has been enacted by the Parliament with a pious object to promote transparency in the functioning of the Government and Public Bodies. However, a judicial notice can be taken of the fact that on many occasions, the said Act is being misused for oblique purposes. We have come across petitions at Principal Seat as well as the Benches wherein the so called activists by taking recourse to the Right to Information Act misused the jurisdiction of this Court. It will not be out of place to mention that the so called activists have also printed letterheads and visiting cards showing them to be experts and advisors under the Right to Information Act. We do not find that the public interest jurisdiction should be permitted to be used for promoting such nefarious activities.

¶20

We, thus, find the present petition to be wholly frivolous. It is, therefore, rejected.

¶21

The costs deposited by the petitioner in this litigation are directed to be given to the Committee constituted under the chairmanship of Shri S. Deopujari,

¶22

¶23

learned Govt. Pleader, which is appointed by the Division Bench of this Court in Public Interest Litigation No. 6177 of 2006, for the purpose of Govt. Shelter Homes.

¶24

Judge Judge

¶25

|hedau|

Anil Gayaprasadji Mishra v. Nagpur Improvement Trust, through Its Chairman, Nagpur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Gayaprasadji Mishra v. Nagpur Improvement Trust, through Its Chairman, Nagpur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Jaikumar Mukundrao Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Prashant Ashokrao Popsethwar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ashatai Madhav Kalyan and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ajay Shantilal Lalwani Vs the Union of India and Others

Mr. Vijay K. Sawant Vs the Government of Maharashtra through the Revenue and Forest Dept. and Ors.

Mr. Vijay K. Sawant Vs the Government of Maharashtra through the Revenue and Forest Dept. and Ors.

Chandrabhan Singh S/O Ramkripal Singh Rathore and Others Vs the Union of India, Thr. Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi and Others

Sau. Varsha W/O Ashok Nanhe ( Ku. Varsha D/O Dayaram Waghdhare) Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary, Rural Development and Water Resources Dept., Mumbai and Others

Ku. Riangala D/O Murlidhar Waghaye (Now Sau. Riangala W/O Shesherao Landge) Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Rural Development and Water Resources Department, Mumbai and

Sau. Shubhangi W/O Suresh Girhepunje Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Rural Development and Water Resources Department, Mumbai and

Smt. Vandana Prakash Samarth and Another Vs Shri Sanjay S/O Vasantrao Dorlikar, Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur

Prabhakar Uttamrao Rindhe Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Its Secretary for Irrigation Dept. Mumbai and Others