Disposed
Sanjiv Chimbulkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Bombay HCPIL/73/2002
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY…
What the court decided
AI extract
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.
suresh 2-PIL-73.2002.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.73 OF 2002
Sanjiv Chimbulkar .... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Others .... Respondents
Mr. Rajesh S. Datar for the Petitioner. Mr. B.V. Samant, AGP, for the Respondent-State. Ms Shaba Khan with Ms Kinjal Jani i/by Mr. R.V. Govilkar for Respondent No.4. Mr. C.G. Gavnekar with Mr. G.S. Hiranandani for Respondent Nos.5 to 7.
CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & R.I. CHAGLA, JJ. DATE : NOVEMBER 04, 2019
P.C:
a Jetty.
suresh 2-PIL-73.2002.doc
respondent No.5 is not claiming that there is any old Jetty and which requires any repairs or improvement. Then there is a reference to Survey No.247 which is a land vesting in a Village Panchayat and that has been used by the 5th respondent for the construction of this Jetty and its back-up area. There is no entry in the Revenue records of a Jetty or an existing construction of that nature which would enable the Village Panchayat then to consider granting permission. This is an altogether a new Jetty and has been constructed without seeking any permission and that construction is on a land vesting in the Village Panchayat.
Page 2 of 3
2-PIL-73.2002.doc
suresh
(R.I. CHAGLA, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
Page 3 of 3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether High Court should interfere with construction activity/permission granted by authorities and predicate its interference on non-existence of prior jetty in revenue records when no amendment of
Whether High Court can probe permissions and approvals granted during pendency of litigation which continues for sixteen years
Whether PIL should be disposed quash underlying permissions on ground of apparent violation of statutory provisions
Sanjiv Chimbulkar
The State of Maharashtra
Others
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI
R.I. CHAGLA
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