In a PIL challenging building plan sanction renewal from 2002 to 2007, the Court dismissed the petition. It observed that fresh sanction complies with existing norms and no violation of Development Control Rules was pleaded. Impugned order dismissed.
Petition seeking to espouse public cause in regard to building sanction dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
jdk 1 of 2 2.(8)cpil.5.09.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 5 OF 2009
Vijay Moreshwar Vengurlekar .. Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
Mr. Siddhesh Pilankar i/b Mr. Uday Warunjikar Advocate for Petitioner
Mr. M.M. Pabale AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Mr. R.S. Datar a/w Mr. Akshay Kandarkar for Respondent No.3
Mr. Gopalkrishna Nayak i/b Flavia Legal for Respondent Nos. 5, 6 & 8.
CORAM : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, C.J. & SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 11, 2019
P.C.:
jdk 2 of 2 2.(8)cpil.5.09.doc
finally a fresh sanction was accorded to the plans on 19th October 2007. The grievance to the plan being sanctioned on 19th October 2007 is premised on the reading of Sections 45, 47 and 48 of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966 which bring out the legal position that an application seeking sanction of a plan if accorded sanction would entitle the person to extension of the period within which the construction has to be effected for a period of three years and if beyond a period of three years, fresh permission has to be obtained. The afore-noted legal position is on account of the fact that from time to time building norms change and three years would be the period for a person to complete construction as per existing norms when sanction was obtained.
SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J. CHIEF JUSTICE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a PIL can be maintained challenging the renewal of building plan sanction granted in October 2007 under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vijay Moreshwar Vengurlekar
State of Maharashtra
Pradeep Nandrajog
Bharati Dangre
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
