Dismissed

Hardas Hazarimal Tharwani v. State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Developmen, Relief and Rehabi. and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Jul 2019PIL/132/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL filed by a journalist challenging a land permission granted for commercial construction in 2002, the Bombay High Court dismissed the petition on grounds of delay and laches, noting the 11-year gap and lack of service to respondents.

What did the court decide?

The Public Interest Litigation against the permission dated 18-10-2002 was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

Hardas Hazarimal Tharwani Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

(9)-PIL-132-13.doc .

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.132 OF 2013

¶4

Hardas Hazarimal Tharwani ..Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents

¶5

Ms. Minal J. Chandnani, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. K. S. Thorat, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 – State. Mr. S. M. Kamble, Advocate for Respondent No.3.

¶6

CORAM : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, C.J. & N. M. JAMDAR, J.

¶7

DATE : 16^th JULY, 2019

¶8

P.C.

¶9

1] Respondent Nos.4 and 5 have not been served till date.

¶10

2] We have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner.

¶11

3] The Petitioner is a journalist and by way of the instant Public Interest Litigation filed in the year 2013 he questions the permission granted on 18^th October 2002 (Annexure D) to the 4^th Respondent to construct a commercial building on land bearing Plot Nos.36 and 37, Section 4B, Sheet No.29, Powai Chowk, Ulhasnagar, District Thane. The Petitioner also questions the right of Respondent No.5 to construct commercial building on the said land under the authorization of Respondent No.4.

¶12

BGP. 1 o f 3

¶13

(9)-PIL-132-13.doc .

¶14

4] As pleaded in the Petition, 1159 sq. yards land comprising Plot Nos.36 and 37, Section 4B, Sheet No.29, Powai Chowk, Ulhasnagar belong to the Government of Maharashtra and vide Exh.A was allotted to Respondent No.4. The allotment dated 30^th January 1982 stipulates the conditions of the allotment being that on FSI one, 24 flats having carpet area of 450 sq.ft. would be constructed and alloted to 24 members of the Respondent No.4 society. That user of the land and the building constructed would be residential.

¶15

5] Pleading that Respondent No.4 made partial construction on the land resulting in full FSI not being used, it alloted 12 tenements to 12 members, the grievance to the impugned order dated 18^th October 2002 is to the fact that permission has been granted to effect further construction and use the additional constructed area for commercial use.

¶16

6] Public Interest Litigation was not properly prosecuted resulting in the same being dismissed in default on 25^th October 2013. It was restored on 9^th June 2016 and since then Respondent Nos.4 and 5 have not been served.

¶17

7] In our opinion, the Public Interest Litigation is liable to be dismissed on account of delay and laches. The impugned order dated 18^th October 2002 has been questioned after 11 years.

¶18

8] We have asked the learned counsel as to what is the

¶19

BGP. 2 o f 3

¶20

(9)-PIL-132-13.doc .

¶21

current status of additional constructions made by Respondent No.5 under authority of Respondent No.4 pursuant to the order dated 18^th October 2002.

¶22

9] Learned counsel very fairly states that the commercial space generated as a result of additional construction has been transferred to third parties.

¶23

10] The Public Interest Litigation is accordingly dismissed.

¶24

N. M. JAMDAR, J CHIEF JUSTICE

¶25

BGP. 3 o f 3

Hardas Hazarimal Tharwani v. State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Developmen, Relief and Rehabi. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hardas Hazarimal Tharwani v. State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Developmen, Relief and Rehabi. and Ors.

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

Zopadpatti Seva Sanstha through Its Authorised Representative Prabhakar Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra and 5 Others

Gulmohar Area Societies Welfare Group REG.NO.E24113(MUM)(24.4.2007) and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and 12 Ors.

Shejad Khan Amanullah Khan Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vishwash Pandurang Gadigaonkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Ajit Gangadhar Jagtap Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shaibaz Shaikh Nazir Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Jitendrakumar Jagdish Indise vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ketan Tirodkar Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary

The Maarashtra Federation of Univrtisy and College Teachers Orgn.and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dr.Vishnu R.Ajgaonkar and Anr. Vs the Vice Chancellor, University of Mumbai and Ors.

Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Nadeem Riyasatali Kapoor Vs Harun Khan and 8 Ors.

Sandesh Chandrakant Waikar Vs the State of Maharashtra and 7 Others

Friends of Society and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.