Dismissed

Shri. Sanjay Digambar Balgude v. the Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Jan 2020PIL/69/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a PIL challenging the implementation of the Urban Rehabilitation scheme. The Court held that 'urban poor' is not too vague and directed the petitioner to approach competent authorities for specific complaints rather than seeking continuous Court supervision.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach competent authorities with specific complaints; PIL dismissed.

Shri. Sanjay Digambar Balgude Vs the Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors. — Bombay HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

¶1

suresh

¶2

902-PIL-69.2013.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.69 OF 2013

¶4

Sanjay Digambar Balgude .... Petitioner Vs. The Pune Municipal Corporation & Others .... Respondents

¶5

Mr. Prathamesh B. Bhargude for the Petitioner. Mr. Abhijit P. Kulkarni for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Ms R.A. Salunkhe, AGP, for Respondent Nos.3 & 4. Ms S.V. Bharucha for Respondent No.5.

¶6

CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & R.I. CHAGLA, JJ. DATE : JANUARY 23, 2020

¶7

P.C:

¶8

The petitioner is an Ex-Corporator of the Pune Municipal Corporation and he is aggrieved and dissatisfied with what, according to him, is a faulty implementation of a scheme of rehabilitation of the urban poor.

¶9

He would submit that the scheme is not opposed but who are urban poor has to be clarified and the benefit must go to such poor sections of the society who are not residing in decent housing accommodation and cannot afford the same on account of poverty. There being no definition of this expression, the scheme is likely to be misused by the allottees of the

Page 1 of 4

902-PIL-69.2013.doc

suresh

houses.

An affidavit in reply has been filed and it is categorically stated that this scheme is a part and parcel of the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission. That is promoted by the 5^th respondent. The scheme is called Basic Services of Urban Poor. The population census as per the 2001 population figure and the projections for future form the basis on which the urban poor have to be provided housing, water supply, sanitation so that public health and public safety is not adversely affected.

¶15

The scheme is implemented in Greater Mumbai, Nashik, Pune, Nagpur and Nanded.

¶16

A developer has been appointed and with it agreement was executed way back on 20-4-2007. There are resolutions backing the execution of this agreement. Thereafter, there are Nodal agencies appointed already on the housing scheme of this magnitude having been taken. For the above, tender notices were published and there are two packages. Package No.1 comprises of 2520 tenements and package No.2 comprises of 2280 tenements. The total tenements are 4800. The structures have to be constructed in accordance with the specification provided and thereafter the details of the scheme are pointed out.

Page 2 of 4

902-PIL-69.2013.doc

suresh

We do not think that the term “urban poor” is so vague and general a term that throughout it has not been understood properly by the implementing agencies. The petitioner knows being an Ex-Corporator that urban poor are those who are identified as residing in subhuman conditions in slums or do not have a permanent housing available for them. They cannot afford it. They could be even the sweepers employed by the Pune Municipal Corporation, In the meagre salary that they are paid, they cannot purchase decent housing accommodation. They have several difficulties which may have been projected together with others who are below the poverty line but residing in urban areas. If there is a mission to provide a decent housing accommodation at the all India level and part and parcel thereof is a scheme for rehabilitation of the urban poor implemented by the Pune Municipal Corporation, then, it is not as if nothing is transparent or not disclosed. If the petitioner feels that the benefits of the scheme have been grabbed by those who are not eligible and entitled, he can bring to the notice of the Competent Authorities the specific instances of such nature. They can then investigate the complaint but surely the petitioner cannot invoke this Court’s writ jurisdiction with a request that the scheme be monitored and supervised by this Court. This is not our job at all. Once we are clear in our mind that the petitioner can approach such authorities as are notified

¶21

Page 3 of 4

¶22

suresh 902-PIL-69.2013.doc

¶23

to be competent to deal with the complaint of the above nature, all the more, we are reluctant to keep this PIL pending. It is disposed of.

¶24

(R.I. CHAGLA, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶25

Digitally signed by SURESH SURESH JAGDISH JAGDISH SAJNAWAT SAJNAWAT Date:2020.01.27 16:00:58 +0530

¶26

Page 4 of 4

Shri. Sanjay Digambar Balgude v. the Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Sanjay Digambar Balgude v. the Pune Municipal Corporation and 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

Urmila W/O Wasudeo Kowe Vs the Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs, through Secretary and Others

S. G. Barnes Vs the Commissioner of Bmc 5 Ors.

Red Crescent Society of Mumbai Vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Shri Dadasaheb Sukhdev Kate and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rajesh Krupashankar Mishra and Another Vs State of Maharashtra, through Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Datta @ Tryambak S/O Ganpat Dive and Others Vs State of Mah., Thr. Ministry of Co-Operation Marketing and Textile, Thr. Its Secretary, Mumbai and

Navnath Sambhaji Bobade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ajay Maheshwari S/O Late Shri. D.B. Maheshwari Vs Union of India through Cabinet Secretary, New Delhi and Others

Ritu Ruhil Vs the Central Board of Film Certification and 2 Ors.

S. G. Barnes Vs the Commissioner of Bmc 5 Ors.

Red Crescent Society of Mumbai Vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Sou. Devibai Nayandas Chhabada Rural Education Society, Satara through Presideent Vs Maharashtra University Health Sciences and Ors.

Sarika D/O Bankat Jagtap Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary , Dept. of School Education Mantralaya and Ors.

Daisy Oniel Pareira and 3 Ors. Vs the Chief Executive Officer, Sra and 4 Ors.