This court disposed of a PIL regarding a mobile tower. It held that if such a tower requires prior permission due to lack of same, the case served its purpose and is disposed of, especially if the Grampanchayat permission is obtained.
The public interest litigation was disposed of without further order.
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.
908-PIL.75.2012.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 75 OF 2012
Nilesh Ramji Machhi and Ors. } Petitioners versus Harishwar Harishchandra } Mistry and Ors. } Respondents
Mr.Ajay Varma for the petitioners.
Mr.Nitin V. Gangal with Ms.Prerna Shukla and Ms.Namita Mestry for respondent no.1.
Mr.Anil V. Anturkar-Senior Advocate with Ms.Kalyani Tulankar I/b. Mr.Sugandh Deshmukh for respondent no.2.
Mr.B.V.Samant-AGP for respondent nos. 4 to 7 (State).
CORAM :- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & R. I. CHAGLA, JJ.
DATED :- NOVEMBER 6, 2019
P.C. :-
was no prior permission sought by the planning authority, then, it is evident that during its subsistence, or even thereafter, now a permission will have to be sought. It is a construction activity covered by section 44 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The word “development”, as defined in that
Page 1 of 2
J.V.SALUNKE,PS
908-PIL.75.2012.doc
legislation, postulates a permission to carry out the same. If that is not obtained, the development can be proceeded against by the planning authority and when it so proceeds, during the subsistence of the notice issued in that behalf, an application for retaining can also be made by the person carrying out such development. Today, it is conceded by the second respondent that a development permission would have to be obtained. In these circumstances, the public interest litigation has served its purpose. It is disposed of accordingly.
(R.I.CHAGLA, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
Page 2 of 2
J.V.SALUNKE,PS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a mobile tower constitutes a construction activity requiring prior permission under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Nilesh Ramji Machhi and Ors.
Harishwar Harishchandra Mistry and Ors.
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
