Petitioner challenged construction of a building on garden-land under Thane Development Plan. Court held construction as a gymnasium and yoga hall fell within permitted exceptions under DC Rules and dismissed PIL. No illegality found.
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.
(9) PIL 81-18.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Amk
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 81 OF 2018
Pradip Chandrakant Indulkar .. Petitioner Vs.
Municipal Corporation for City of Thane & Ors.
.. Respondents
Mr. R. S. Datar i/b Ms. Gauri Godse for the Petitioner. Mr. N. R. Bubna for Respondent Nos.1 & 3. Mr. M. M. Pabale for Respondent Nos.2 & 4.
CORAM : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, C.J. & SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATE : 15th OCTOBER, 2019.
P. C. :
1/2
(9) PIL 81-18.doc
and Yoga Hall on the ground floor.
[SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.]
[CHIEF JUSTICE]
2/2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether construction of a recreational centre on land reserved as a garden violates the Development Plan.
Whether the building can be justified under Rule 54(g)(ii) of the DC Rules allowing pavilions and gymnasia in 15% of garden area.
Pradip Chandrakant Indulkar
Municipal Corporation for City of Thane
Others
Pradeep Nandrjog
Bharati Dangre
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
