Disposed

Shivraj Balasaheb Kadu v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC14 Jun 2021PIL/48/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL petition sought directions for clearing encroachments, completing specific infrastructure, and accelerating ring road construction. The court noted encroachments were cleared, deferred underpass matters to another pending PIL, and permitted filing a fresh petition for the ring road with the correct parties after dismissal.

What did the court decide?

Prayer B not survive as encroachments removed. Prayer C deferred to PIL 96 of 2013. Petitioner permitted to file afresh for Prayer D by arraying NHAI.

Shivraj Balasaheb Kadu Vs the State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1 PIL / 48 / 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 48 OF 2017

¶4

Shivraj Balasaheb Kadu

¶5

... Petitioner

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents

¶8

Mr. Sanket S. Kulkarni, petitioner-in-person

¶9

Mr. S.B. Yawalkar, AGP for respondent – State

¶10

Mr. Ameet R. Vaidya, Advocate for respondent no. 10

¶11

Mr. M.N. Navandar, Advocate for respondent no. 11

¶12

CORAM : DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ AND RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

¶13

DATE : JUNE 14, 2021

¶14

PC :

¶15

The prayers in this Public Interest Litigation read as

¶16

follows :

¶17

“B) By issuing writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or directions in the like nature the respondent no. 8 and 10 may kindly be directed to remove encroachments at Zalta Phata to Mahanobhav Ashram road, SBI Bank to Deolai chowk and Cidco bus stand Chowk to Beed by pass road.

¶18

C) By issuing writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or directions in the like nature the respondents no. 1, 4 and 11 may kindly directed to take further steps to complete the squire bridge at Deolai Chowk and to complete the 6

¶19

2 PIL / 48 / 2017

¶20

lane road of Cidco Chowk to Beed by pass along with Mukudwadi railway station over bridge.

¶21

D) By issuing writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or directions in the like nature the respondent no. 6 SLO Aurangabad may kindly directed to complete the acquisition process of by pass road (ring road) of National Highway no. 211 passing through the village Gandheli and Balapur within 2 months and the respondent no. 12 may kindly be directed to complete the said ring road by initiating rapid steps.”

¶22

Insofar as the relief claimed vide prayer clause (B) is concerned, an affidavit has been filed by Shri Ravindra Prabhakarrao Nikam, Deputy Commissioner, Administration, Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad. Paragraph 2 of such affidavit reads as follows :

¶23

“2. I say and submit that after the expiry of the period of protection as ordered by this Hon’ble Court on account of the Covid-19 pandemic, demolition drive was undertaken on 12/3/2021, 16/3/2021 and 17/3/2021. On these days action was taken for removal of unauthorised structures affected by the road widening of Beed bypass and all the 23 structure as were shown to be remaining in my Affidavit dated 13/3/2020 are now removed and no structure remains to be demolished, as far as the properties that are not subjudice in any matter before this Hon’ble Court are concerned.”

¶24

Having regard to such statement of the Deputy Commissioner on oath, which is not disputed by Mr. Kulkarni, learned advocate for the petitioner, we record that prayer clause (B) does not survive for consideration.

¶25

3 PIL / 48 / 2017

¶26

Regarding prayer clause (C), we wish to observe that the issue relating to construction of an underpass at Shivaji Nagar is under consideration of this Court in PIL Petition No. 96 of 2013. Several orders have been passed on PIL Petition No. 96 of 2013 including an order passed today for expediting the project work. We are of the considered opinion that the same issue need not considered twice over and if the petitioner is interested in expeditious completion of the underpass at Shivaji Nagar, he may participate in the proceedings of PIL Petition No. 96 of 2013. Liberty in this behalf is reserved.

¶27

Prayer clause (D) is in respect of ring road. The National Highways Authority of India (hereafter ‘the NHAI’) is a necessary party in respect of construction of such ring road. Although we find that officers of the NHAI are party respondents in this Public Interest Litigation, the NHAI is not included in the array of respondents. That apart, we are of the view that the issue of construction of ring road is quite different from the relief that the petitioner sought for vide prayer clauses (B) and (C).

¶28

We, therefore, permit the petitioner to file afresh seeking orders for facilitating construction of ring road by

¶29

4 PIL / 48 / 2017

¶30

arraying appropriate parties. All contentions in respect thereof

¶31

are kept open.

¶32

This Public Interest Litigation stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶33

[RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.] [ CHIEF JUSTICE ]

¶34

arp/

Shivraj Balasaheb Kadu v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivraj Balasaheb Kadu v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit Kantikumar Jain Vs Union of India and Others

Vrushant Wadke vs State of Maharashtra and 23 Ors.

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

Jayshri Ravi Sabu Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Nandkumar Ramling Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vinayakrao Tukaram Mete Vs the Chief Minister and Others

Avinash Munjajira Kale Vs the Stet of Maharashtra and Others

Omprakash Bhaurao Kamdi and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.

Devidas Sukdeo Ghate Vs Harshida Devidas Ghate

Shirdi Nagar Panchayat Shirdi Dist Ahmednagar through Administrator and Anothers Vs the State of Maharshtra and Anothers

Bapusaheb Rambhaji Khemnar Vs Parner Taluka Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, Ahmednagar and Another

Rajendra Bhaguji Aambre Vs the Superintendent of Police and Another

Ninad S/O. Suresh Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Syed Imtiaz Jaleel Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others