This PIL challenged the quality of underground drainage work. The court dismissed the petition, holding it based on erroneous assumptions. The petitioner lacked expertise and failed to provide expert opinion or supporting material for claims of substandard construction.
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.
(1)
92.19pil
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.92 OF 2019
Abhijit S/o Ramesh Mapari, Age: 44 years, Occu:Agriculture, R/o NewasaKhurd, Tal. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar ..PETITIONER VERSUS
92.19pil
(2)
No.6 to 8 R/o. NewasaKhurd, Tal-Newasa, Dist- Ahmednagar. ..RESPONDENTS
Mr Krushna D Mote, Advocate for petitioner; Mr S. P. Sonpawale, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 & 2
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND
AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.
DATE : 24th September, 2019
ORAL ORDER:
Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner at length
92.19pil
(3)
favour with the applicants and by clause (2) of the order, the leave sought for under Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure was declined in clear words. The petitioner, thereafter has approached this Court with following prayers:-
"(B) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus to respondent no.1 made inquiry about the work of underground drainage.
(C) The respondent no. 4 and 5 may be directed that the underground drainage is of lower quality therefore remove all the underground drainage construction and rework all the construction according to the plan estimate and terms and conditions of the contract.
(D) Till the inquiry will be held the further work of underground drainage and construction of road over it may be stayed."
"In the present writ petition, we are certainly not in a position to consider prayer clause-B challenging the order of Civil Judge. For rest of the prayer the matter would be in the nature of P.I.L. The petitioner may take appropriate steps."
92.19pil
(4)
(5)
92.19pil
general and under ground drainage of water pipelines in particular, he submitted that no such expertise is possessed by the petitioner as he is an agriculturist.
(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.) (PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)
sjk
3 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court is empowered to convert a civil suit rejection into a public interest litigation based on unverified allegations of substandard construction.
Whether the allegations regarding substandard underground drainage warranted the dismissal of the writ petition.
Whether the petitioner is competent to question the quality of construction without expert opinion or special knowledge.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Abhijit S/o Ramesh Mapari
The State of Maharashtra
The District Administration Officer
The Chief Officer, Nagarpanchayat, Newasakhurd
Sachin S/o Haribhau Gavare
Rajendra S/o Laxman Lonkar
Prasanna B. Varale
Avinash G. Gharote
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
