Dismissed

Mrs. S.G.P. Barnes v. Shri Narendra P. Naik and 8 Ors.

Bombay HC6 Dec 2019PIL/58/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner alleged encroachment on a DP road obstructing BEST buses. Respondent Municipal Corporation stated the road is proposed, current structure is on private property, and acquisition is required. Court held PIL served its purpose upon undertaking to follow due process.

What did the court decide?

The Public Interest Litigation, Notices of Motion No.340 of 2014 and No.400 of 2019 were disposed of as the PIL had served its purpose.

Mrs. S.G.P. Barnes Vs Shri Narendra P. Naik and 8… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

Sherla V.

¶2

pil.58.2007_908.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J.

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.58 OF 2007 WITH

¶5

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.340 OF 2014 AND

¶6

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.400 OF 2019

¶7

S.G.P. Barnes … Petitioner

¶8

¶9

Narendra P. Naik … Respondents Rationing Officer & Ors.

¶10

Petitioner-in-person present

¶11

Ms.Uma Palsuledesai, AGP, for Respondent – State Mr.A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate with Ms.K.H. Mastakar for Municipal Corporation Mr.Chetan Mhatre i/b Utangale & Co. for SRA

¶12

CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & R.I. CHAGLA, JJ.

¶13

DATED: DECEMBER 6, 2019

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

The only difference between this Public Interest Litigation

¶16

and Public Interest Litigation No.73 of 2010 is that in this PIL, the petitioner says that there is an encroachment, right in the middle of

¶17

the DP road and that prevents the BEST buses which is a mode of

¶18

public transport from going further and carrying passengers to their

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

pil.58.2007_908.doc

¶21

destination. It is an obstruction in the smooth flow of traffic and the Municipal Corporation must remove the same as it is in the middle of the road.

¶22

The Municipal Corporation on affidavit says that the position is not as projected by the PIL petitioner. The road is a proposed Development Plan road. The encroachment, as the petitioner terms it, is nothing but a construction on a private property. If the proposed DP road or the DP road reservation / designation has to be taken to its logical end and conclusion, then, the Municipal Corporation would have to acquire rights in this property and then alone, lay the complete road and enable the BEST buses and other vehicles to ply by using the same. Presently, the Municipal Corporation cannot term this structure as an encroachment on an already constructed and duly laid DP road.

¶23

In the circumstances, the Municipal Corporation says that it is obliged to follow the due process of law and would follow it.

¶24

Once the Municipal Corporation has said that it will follow the process of law and take this designation or reservation to its logical end, then, the PIL has served its purpose. It is disposed of.

¶25

Page 2 of 3

¶26

pil.58.2007_908.doc

¶27

In view of the disposal of the PIL, Notices of Motion also stand disposed of.

¶28

(R.I. CHAGLA, J.)

¶29

(S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶30

Page 3 of 3

Mrs. S.G.P. Barnes v. Shri Narendra P. Naik and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. S.G.P. Barnes v. Shri Narendra P. Naik and 8 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

Mrs. S.G.P.Barnes Vs Shri. Sunil Damne and 3 Ors.

Consumer Action Network (Can) and 9 Ors. Vs Union of India and 6 Ors.

Bhagwan Dagadu Patil and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bhagvanji Rayani vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Keshubhai Vestabhai Patel and Anr. Vs the Union of India, through Dept of Home Affairs and Ors.

Dwarakanath Trimbakrao Batule and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Bhagvanji Rayani vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Jan Mukti Morcha vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mrs. S.G.P.Barnes Vs Shri. Sunil Damne and 3 Ors.

Mrs. S.G.P.Barnes Vs Shri. Sunil Damne and 9 Ors.

Mrs. S.G.P. Barnes Vs Sunil Damne Asst Commissioner of Bmc and Ors.

Ramrajya Shikshan Sanstha and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary to Secondary and Higher Secondary Edu. Dept. and Ors.

Smt. S.G.P. Barnes Vs the Municipal Commissioner, Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and 9 Ors.

Keshubhai Vestabhai Patel and Anr. Vs the Union of India, through Dept of Home Affairs and Ors.