Disposed

Anand Bapuji Chavan v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC25 Jun 2019PIL/42/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench disposed of a PIL regarding the plugging of wells on private land in Mumbai without prior permission under a Municipal Corporation Circular. The court issued a mandamus directing the Commissioner to treat the petition as a representation and initiate action against violators.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus issued to Commissioner of 2nd Respondent to treat the PIL as a representation and take action against persons who plugged wells without permission within six weeks.

Anand Bapuji Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

(7) PIL 42-18

¶2

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

¶3

Amk

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 42 OF 2018

Anand Bapuji Chavan

.. Petitioner

Vs.

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents

¶9

Mr. Sandeep B. Satkar i/b Mr. Sachin Manohar Bandkar for the Petitioner.

¶10

Ms. Geeta Shastri, AGP for Respondent No.1-State. Ms. K. H. Mastakar for Respondent No.2-MCGM.

¶11

CORAM : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, C.J. & N. M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 25th JUNE, 2019.

¶12

P. C. :

¶13

The foundation of the prayer made in the Public Interest Litigation is a Circular No. MDA/5524 dated 07.07.2005 issued by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. The subject matter of the circular is wells on private land within the municipal areas of Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai. The circular highlights the definition of the word ‘development’ as defined in Sub-section 7 of Section 2 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The circular mandates prior permission to be obtained from the Corporation before an existing well on private land can be plugged. As per the circular, plugging of a well on private land amounts to development and if it is done without permission it would be a case of an unauthorized development attracting penal provision of the Town Planning Act.

¶14

1/2

¶15

(7) PIL 42-18

¶16

Along with Public Interest Petition, the Petitioner has annexed representations made to the concerned Officer of the MCGM praying action be taken against the persons named in the representations who have plugged wells. The Petitioner has also annexed with the Public Interest Petition information received under the Right to Information Act recording that the wells have been plugged without any permission. 3. The MCGM is obliged to comply with its circular dated 07.07.2005.

¶17

We disposed of the Petition issuing a mandamus to the Commissioner of the 2^nd Respondent to treat the Public Interest Petition as a representation and take action against the persons who have plugged wells without obtaining necessary permission.

¶18

Learned Counsel for the MCGM affirms to us that she has with her a copy of the Public Interest Petition with its annexures and states that she would obtain a copy of the present order and after authenticating the same would transmit it to the office of the Commissioner of 2^nd Respondent together with a copy of the Public Interest Petition with its annexures. The Commissioner of the 2^nd Respondent would comply with the mandamus within six weeks from the date he receives the authenticated copy of the order together with the Public Interest Petition and its annexures.

¶19

[N. M. JAMDAR, J.]

¶20

[CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶21

2/2

Anand Bapuji Chavan v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand Bapuji Chavan v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Ajit Shantaram Mahadik Vs Maharashtra Housing Development Authority (Mhada) and 4 Ors.

Sudhir Pralhad Barge Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sajid Usman Batliwala Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dr Shivaji Shringrao Bhise and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shri. Devendra S/O Sureshrao Wankhede Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Urban Development Dept. and 3 Others

Courts on Its Own Motion Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department of Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Others

Vijay S/O Mahesh Gupta Vs State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Department of Secondary Education, Nagpur and Others

Courts on Its Own Motion Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Its Secretary, Education and Sports Department, Mumbai and Others

Alfred Michael Arambhan Vs Ajay Ghanshyamdas Goenka

Ajit Shantaram Mahadik Vs Maharashtra Housing Development Authority (Mhada) and 4 Ors.

Sudhir Pralhad Barge Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dr. Digambar Mahadev Zombade and Anr. Vs the Secretary, Sangameshwar Education Society and Ors.

Dr. D.S. Nikam Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Dept. of Higher and Technical Education and Ors.

Dr. Mrs. Rajlakshmi Vishnu Barve Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Higher and Technical Edu. and Ors.