Dismissed

Sachin Anil Choughule and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Sept 2019CP/465/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Division Bench discharged notice of contempt in a PIL regarding non-compliance with direction to take a show-cause notice to its logical end. Court held question of regularization compounding not capable of decision on contempt. Petitioners to challenge regularization by way of substantive petition.

What did the court decide?

notice of contempt discharged; petitioners entitled to challenge regularization by way of substantive petition.

Sachin Anil Choughule and Anr. Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

(9)-CP-465-17.doc .

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.465 OF 2017 IN

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.18 OF 2016

¶5

Sachin Anil Choughule and another ..Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents

¶6

Mr. Vishwajit P. Sawant a/w Mr. Nikhil Patil, Mr. Prabhakar Jadhav & Akansha Kalyan Purkar, Advocates for the Petitioners. Mr. K. S. Thorat, AGP for Respondent No.1. Mr. S. S. Aradhye, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Mr. I. M. Khairdi, Advocate for Respondent No.3. Mr. P. G. Lad a/w Ms. Priyanka Naik, Advocate for Respondent No.4.

¶7

CORAM : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, C.J. & SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.

¶8

DATE : 11^th SEPTEMBER, 2019

¶9

P.C.

¶10

1] Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

2] Contempt alleged is the non-compliance of the directions issued by the Division Bench vide order dated 17^th March 2017 disposing of PIL No.18/2016.

¶12

3] The Division Bench noted that the 5^th Respondent, a contractor who had to effect constructions on a land belonging to

¶13

BGP. 1 o f 3

¶14

(9)-CP-465-17.doc .

¶15

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation had deviated from the sanctioned plans. The order noted that in spite of a notice issued under Section 53(1)of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 by the Municipal Council, no final order was passed. The Division Bench directed the Municipal Council to take it’s notice dated 5^th March 2015 to it’s logical end.

¶16

4] The reply brings out that Respondent No.5 sought compounding/regularization of the deviations from the sanctioned plans and on charging compounding fee in sum of ₹ 10,33,215/deviations were regularized.

¶17

5] Counsel for the Petitioners urges that the direction in the order dated 17^th March 2017 requiring the notice dated 5^th March 2015 to be taken its logical end means that the unauthorized deviations had to be demolished. Compounding was not permissible.

¶18

6] We do not agree. Deviations which are capable of being regularized stand at a different footings vis-a-vis deviations which are not capable of being regularized by way of compounding.

¶19

7] The direction to take the show-cause notice to it’s logical end cannot be read to mean that if permissible, the deviations were incapable of being regularized requiring the notice dated 5^th March 2015 to be disposed directing demolition threat.

¶20

2 o f 3

¶21

BGP.

¶22

(9)-CP-465-17.doc .

¶23

8] Clarifying that the issue whether regularization/ compounding is valid has not been gone into by us, we discharge the notice of contempt issued observing that the Petitioners would be entitled to challenge the compounding/regularization by way of a substantive Petition.

¶24

SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J

¶25

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶26

3 o f 3

¶27

BGP.

Sachin Anil Choughule and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Anil Choughule and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra 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

Himmat Rajaram Mundhe Vs State of Maharashtra, through Revenue and Forest Ministry and Ors.

Balaji Chandrakant Gawde Vs the State of Maharashtra through Revenue and Forest Dept. and Ors.

Mr. Keshav N. Gupta Vs the Principal/Superintendent of Hospital Sai Homoeopathic Med. College and Nityanand Hospital and a

Farokh S. Todywalla and Another Vs University of Mumbai and 3 Others

Mumbai Grahak Panchayat through Chairman Shirish v Deshpande and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra through Prin. Secretary, Dept. of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protectio

Vijay Moreshwar Vengurlekar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. M