Disposed

Vijaymala Krishna Asankar and Another v. State of Maha., Thr. Principal Secy., Urban Development Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Mar 2022PIL/11/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A PIL by Municipal Council President and Corporator challenging a State Government letter which transferred road and sewerage work to the PWD. The Court held that the specific agency is less critical than the provision of amenities and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The Public Interest Litigation is disposed of.

Vijaymala Krishna Asankar and Another Vs State of… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

905-PIL-11-2022.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

P.I.L. No.11 of 2022

¶5

Sau. Vijaymala Krishna Asankar and another … Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Maharashtra and others … Respondents

¶8

Mr. P.M. Pande, Advocate for Petitioners. Mrs. K.S. Joshi, Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶9

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 9 MARCH 2022

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners.

¶13

This Petition is moved purportedly in public interest by the Petitioners. The Petitioner No.1 is the President of the concerned Municipal Council and the Petitioner No.2 is the Corporator. The Municipal Council is not before us through the Chief Officer.

¶14

The Petitioners have objected to the Corrigendum issued by the State Government on 27 December 2021, whereby it is stated that the work in the city, more particularly of roads and sewerage, would be undertaken by the Public Works Department and not by

Lanjewar

905-PIL-11-2022.odt

the Municipal Council.

¶19

So far as the aspect of the public interest is concerned, the public interest would be in the condition of the roads and sewerage and not in which implementing agency should provide these general amenities, as long as amenities are provided to the residents. Both, the Municipal Council and the State Government are Public Authorities committed to provide the public amenities to the citizens. If the roads and sewerage in the city are neglected, that may give rise to a cause in the public interest. However, we do not find any such pleading in the Petition.

¶20

Now the State Government has taken over the responsibility of providing the amenities of roads and sewerage through the Public Works Department, the Department will ensure that all these amenities should be provided to the citizens / residents of the localities and they are not inconvenienced by the change of the implementing agency.

¶21

The Public Interest Litigation is accordingly disposed of.

¶22

Digitally Signed By :P D LANJEWAR Signing Date:11.03.2022 17:30

¶23

Lanjewar

Vijaymala Krishna Asankar and Another v. State of Maha., Thr. Principal Secy., Urban Development Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijaymala Krishna Asankar and Another v. State of Maha., Thr. Principal Secy., Urban Development Dept., Mumbai 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

Kamal Jagdish Singh vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority

Vijay Babasaheb Sale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Krishna Kumar Agrawal and Others Vs Union of India, Thr. Ministry of Mines, New Delhi and Others

Shri. Nitin S/O Mohandas Rathi Vs Union of India, Thr. Secretary, Textile Ministry, and Other

Tilak Gopinath Bhos and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Anil S/O Subhash Darekar and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr, Its Principal Secretary, Development Deptt., Mumbai and Others

M/S Sovereign Tech Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (Midc) and Ors.

Shubham Rushi Bawankar Vs State of Maha., Thr. Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept., Mumbai and Others

Raju Bhaskarrao Mohitkar Vs the State of Maha., State Excise, Mumbai Thr. Its Secretary and Others

Vikas S/O Baddu Ade and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Its Collector, Yavatmal and Others

Satish S/O Lokchand Patle Vs Union of India, Thr. Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Education, New Delhi and Ors.

Muhammad Iftekhar Abdul Salam Vs Maharashtra State Council of Examination, through Its Commissioner and 3 Others

M/S. Universe Real Infra Thr. Its Proprietor Shri. Pravin Totalwar and Another Vs Union of India,Thr. Secretary Ministry of Finance, New Delhi

Paravati Sudam Pingle and Others Vs the Additional Collector/District Magistrate, Nagpur and Others