Dismissed

Vithal Pandurang Barge v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Oct 2018PIL/87/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a notification constituting Koregaon Gram Panchayat as a Nagar Panchayat, arguing mandatory compliance with Section 3(3) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils Act required mentioning the newspaper name. Court dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; impugned notification stands upheld.

Vithal Pandurang Barge Vs State of Maharashtra through… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

(931) PIL-87-16.doc

¶2

BDPSPS

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.87 OF 2016

¶5

Vithal Pandurang Barge ..Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..Respondents

¶6

Mr. C.G. Gavnekar alongwith Mr. G.S. Hiranandani and Mr. A.C. Gavnekar, Advocates for the Petitioner.

¶7

Mr. S.B. Kalel, AGP, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶8

Mr. Vikas M. Mali, Advocate for Respondent No.5.

¶9

CORAM: B. R. GAVAI &

¶10

M. S. KARNIK, JJ. DATE: 11^th OCTOBER, 2018

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

1] Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the

¶13

Notification vide which Koregaon Gram Panchayat has been constituted into Nagar Panchayat.

¶14

2] Mr. Gavnekar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, relies on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court to

¶15

which one of us (Gavai, J.) was a party, in the case of Padmatai w/o

¶16

1/4

¶17

(931) PIL-87-16.doc

¶18

Krushnaji Chute vs. State of Maharashtra¹ , to contend that when the Statute prescribes a particular thing to be done, the said compliance is mandatory. He submits that the provisions of subsection (3) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayat and Industrial Townships Act, 1965, requires that the Notification must mention the name of newspaper in which the draft Notification was published. He submits that the impugned Notification does not mention the name of the newspaper in which the draft Notification was published and as such, the impugned Notification is liable to be set aside.

¶19

3] In the judgment cited supra, Division Bench held that when the Statute requires a particular thing to be done, statutory compliance is necessary before quasi legislative piece of legislation could be notified. To consider the submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioner, it will be necessary to refer to subsection (3) of Section 3 of the said Act, which reads thus :

¶20

3(3). Before the publication of a notification

¶21

1 2016(4) Mh.L.J. 306

¶22

2/4

¶23

(931) PIL-87-16.doc

¶24

under subsection (2), the State Government shall cause to be published in the Official Gazette, and also in at least one newspaper circulating in the area to be specified in the notification, a proclamation announcing the intention of Government to issue such notification, and inviting all persons who entertain any objection to the said proposal to submit the same in writing with the reasons therefor, to the Collector of the District within not less than thirty days from the date of the publication of the proclamation in the Official Gazette.

¶25

Copies of the proclamation in Marathi shall also be posted in conspicuous places in the area proposed to be declared as a municipal area.”

¶26

It could thus be seen that what subsection (3) of Section 3 requires is that, prior to issuing the final Notification, a drat Notification is required to be published in one newspaper circulated in the area to be specified in the Notification. The purpose of publishing the draft Notification is to enable the residents of the area to be informed that Government proposes to convert the area into municipal area and to file their objections, if they so desire. It could further be seen that the

¶27

3/4

¶28

(931) PIL-87-16.doc

¶29

said subsection (3) also requires copies of the proclamation to be posted in Marathi in conspicuous places in the area proposed to be declared as a municipal area. The legislative intent is therefore clear that prior publication of draft Notification is necessary, so that residents of the area become aware of the intention of the Government and if they so desire they can file their objections. The purpose can be fulfilled by publishing the draft Notification in the newspaper which has wide circulation in the area which is sought to be converted.

¶30

4] We find that the interpretation, as is sought to be placed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner on the provisions of subsection (3) of Section 3 that the Notification must mention the name of news

¶31

paper in which the draft Notification was published is without substance.

¶32

5] Petition is therefore dismissed.

¶33

(M. S. KARNIK, J.)

¶34

(B. R. GAVAI, J.)

¶35

4/4

Vithal Pandurang Barge v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vithal Pandurang Barge v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

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

Sachin Shivajirao Hude and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pravartak Suhas Pathak Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and 2 Ors.

Shri. Vijay Maruti Satape Vs State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Water Supply and Ors.

Shri. Vijay Maruti Satape Vs State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Water Supply and Ors.

Sanjay Bhaskar Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rahul Macchindra Bhalerao and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Chandrakant Rabaji Dhawale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ram Suryabhan Khade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shivas Autocomp Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Manav Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs Slum Rehabilitation Authhority and 4 Others

Santosh Shankerappa Umarani Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Bhavya Sinha Vs Shri Vile Parle Kevlani Mandal and 2 Ors.

Shri. Pawar Sharad Baburao Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, and Ors.

Shri. Naik Dattatraya Maruti and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Anr.