Dismissed

Sateyan Pralhad Mohite v. the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary General Administration Dept. and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Mar 2021PIL/12/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Pune disposed of a PIL challenging illegal developments on alleged Mahar Vatan lands. The court rejected the petition due to vague pleadings, lack of documentary evidence, and failure to establish a nexus with the newspaper announcement. No adjudication was possible.

What did the court decide?

The petition/Public Interest Litigation is rejected and disposed of.

Sateyan Pralhad Mohite Vs the State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

5. PIL12 - 2020.odt

¶2

VPH

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. 12 OF 2020

¶5

Sateyan Pralhad Mohite ... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents

¶6

¶7

Mr. Pradip V. Tapse Patil, for the Petitioner.

¶8

Mr. P.P. Kakade, Govt. Pleader a/w Smt. R. A. Salunkhe, AGP and Sonawane, Addl. Govt. Pleader for the Respondent - State. Mr. Abhijit Kulkarni, for respondent no. 3 - Corporation.

¶9

¶10

CORAM :- SUNIL P. DESHMUKH & G. S. KULKARNI, JJ. DATE :- MARCH 24, 2021

¶11

PC :

¶12

1. Present public interest litigation purports to put up challenge

¶13

to declaration under the news published in daily “Lokmat”dated 15^th November, 2019 declaring that Municipal Commissioner, Pune has invited applications for 2200 houses under Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna in Hadapsar, Kharadi and Wadgaon (Khurd) areas and draws of, and that there are about 5000 eligible persons.

¶14

2. Learned counsel for Petitioner submits that lands from

¶15

village Kharadi, taluka Haveli, district Pune, 7-12 extracts of which are

¶16

1/3

¶17

5. PIL12 - 2020.odt

¶18

annexed, are Mahar Vatan lands, were not transferrable, and there have been illegal developments. He purports to relate said lands to one Gaikwad family.

¶19

Learned counsel Mr. Kulkarni appearing for Respondent No. 3 Corporation submits that no relation of the lands in the petition with announcement in the news paper has been brought forth. Petitioner is merely claiming that transfers have been illegal. No documents have been placed on record. Petitioner is not clear about relevance with news paper report.

¶20

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it so surfaces that no documents have been placed on record showing that though the lands concerned referred to in the petition are either Mahar Vatan lands or are of Gaikwad family, neither it appears Gaikwad family has approached authorities, nor it is case of the Petitioner that he has made any approach with the authorities. The pleadings are too vague, to disclose nexus between the newspaper report and the lands concerned, referred to in the petition / PIL.

¶21

The petition has been lodged without giving proper

¶22

2/3

¶23

5. PIL12 - 2020.odt

¶24

particulars and in the absence of relevant particulars, it would be difcult to have adjudication in the matter. With vague pleadings, a PIL would Digitally signed by Vinayak P. Vinayak Halemath seldom be entertained. PIL is thus rejected and is disposed of. P. Date: Halemath 2021.03.25 17:36:16 Sd/Sd/+0530 (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) (SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.)

¶25

Vinayak Halemath

¶26

3/3

Sateyan Pralhad Mohite v. the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary General Administration Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sateyan Pralhad Mohite v. the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary General Administration Dept. 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

Vitthal Bira Pawar Vs the Commissioner, State Election Commission and Others

Rajesh Annasaheb Bhadgale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rajaram Kondiba Mudholkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Datta Narayan Rane and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dhanaji Shesherao Mule and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jayshri Ravi Sabu Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Uttam Totaram Nikam and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vrushant Wadke vs State of Maharashtra and 23 Ors.

Jatin K Koticha Vs ACIT-20(1)

Commissioner of Income TAX-3 Vs Sumitomo Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd.

Deepak Naraindas Basantani Vs Ulhasnagar Municipal Corp. Thru the Commissioner, and Ors.

Sandeep Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Capri Heights Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs Pranay Construction Pvt.Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Concrete Builders Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.