Dismissed

Nitesh Mohanlal Doshi v. the Mumbai Municipal Corporation and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC27 Aug 2019PIL/3/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL challenging a 2006 sanction for construction on a vested textile mill site, the bench dismissed the petition. Refusing to interpret the Development Control Regulations, the Court held the PIL targeted only one area, lacked positive assertion of differing legal interpretations elsewhere, and was barred by the belated nature of the challenge after construction was completed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Nitesh Mohanlal Doshi Vs the Mumbai Municipal… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

(17)-PIL-3-17.doc .

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.3 OF 2017

¶4

Nitesh Mohanlal Doshi ..Petitioner Versus The Mumbai Municipal Corporation and others ..Respondents

¶5

Mr. Rakesh Agrawal, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. K. H. Mastakar, Advocate for Respondent No.1 – MCGM. Mr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Saket Mone I/by Vidhi Partners, Advocate for Respondent No.3.

¶6

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

¶7

DATE : 27^th AUGUST, 2019

¶8

P.C.

¶9

1] We are not inclined to grant relief prayed for in the Public Interest Litigation for the reason the Petitioner is targeting only one area where a textile mill existed once upon a time and as per the law in

¶10

Maharashtra on closure¹ ⁄3^rd land of the mill vested in MHADA,¹ ⁄3^rd in the Corporation and¹ ⁄3^rd in the owner.

¶11

2] Sanction granted way back on 1^st September 2006 to construct buildings in the owner's share has been questioned by filing Public Interest Litigation in the year 2017. The Petitioner wants the Court to interpret the Development Control Regulations and in

¶12

BGP. 1 o f 2

¶13

(17)-PIL-3-17.doc .

¶14

particular Regulations 23 and 35 in a manner which the Petitioner intends. Succinctly, the Petitioner wants 25% recreational area to be determined with reference to the entire plot of land of the mill and the stand of the Corporation is that the same has to be with reference to the owner's share.

¶15

3] We do not venture in the exercise of interpreting the law for the reason the Petitioner has not made any positive assertion of the positive fact that for other mills the law has been interpreted differently vis-a-vis the instant case.

¶16

4] That apart the action is belated. Pursuant to the sanction obtained in the year 2006 the constructions have been completed long back.

¶17

5] The PIL is dismissed.

¶18

SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J CHIEF JUSTICE

¶19

2 o f 2

¶20

BGP.

Nitesh Mohanlal Doshi v. the Mumbai Municipal Corporation and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Nitesh Mohanlal Doshi v. the Mumbai Municipal Corporation and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharmendra P. Bhatt Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ramdas Babarao More Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vinod Mohanlal Jain Vs the State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Vishnu Dashrath Panasare and Ors. Vs the Collector , Pune and Ors.

Dr. Anjan Kumar Chatterjee Vs the Union of India, through the Secretary to Government, Ministry of Finance, New Dehlhi and 3 Othe

Mr. Sagar Rajabhau Suryavanshi Vs Union of India through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Kishan Nathu Ghutiya and Anr. Vs the Administrator, Silvassa and Ors.

Vishal Hanmantrao Mohite Vs Maharashtra Public Service Commissin and Ors.

Govind S/O Deoram Kandalkar and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.

Sameer S/O Ashokrao Jadhav and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.

Maharashtra Rajya Madhyamik Va Uccha Madhyamik Shala Kruti Samittee Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Chief Secretary and Ors.

Gandhi Natha Rangli Homoepathic Medical College , Solapur, Vs Union of India, through Its Secretary and Ors.

Dr. Kanagasabapathy Sundaram Pillai Vs Governor Reserve Bank of India

Hiralal and Co. and 2 Ors. Vs Kashish Park Realtors and Anr.