Dismissed

Santosh Harishchandra Kanojia v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and 5 Ors.

Bombay HC10 Oct 2022PIL/7/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner alleged faulty bridge design causing potential flooding. The Court dismissed the PIL, holding that it cannot sit in appeal over expert engineering decisions and noting 95% work completion with no substantive material placed on record.

What did the court decide?

The petition challenging the bridge construction design was dismissed. No costs.

Santosh Harishchandra Kanojia Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

7-PIL-7-2022

¶2

Pdp

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDIARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 7 OF 2022

¶4

Santosh Harishchandra Kanojia

¶5

.. Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors. .. Respondents

¶8

Mr. O. R. Tiwari with Mr. A. R. Kale & Neetu Gupta for petitioner.

¶9

Ms. Kejali Mastakar for respondent nos.1 to 5/MCGM.

¶10

CORAM: DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ. & MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

¶11

DATE : OCTOBER 10, 2022

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

1. By instituting this public interest litigation, the petitioner complains of alleged faulty design in construction of a bridge over Poisar river. Although the writ petition was instituted on 7^th December, 2021, no real effort was made by the petitioner to have the same heard. Much water seems to have flown under the bridge since then.

¶14

2. We have an affidavit in reply filed by the Assistant Engineer of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM). It appears from paragraph 6 and its several sub paragraphs that presently 95% work of the underconstruction bridge is complete and the balance work is proposed to be completed by November, 2022.

¶15

¶16

7-PIL-7-2022

¶17

3. It is submitted by Mr. Tiwari, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner that it is only after institution of this public interest litigation that the MCGM has proceeded hurriedly to complete the bridge construction work, which started as far back as in 2016-2017. According to him, the bridge is being constructed in such a manner that the same is bound to result in flooding of the river water which is bound to affect the persons residing in the locality.

¶18

4. We have looked into the petition memo as well as the prayers therein, whereby the petitioner seeks an order from this Court to dismantle the under-construction bridge and to reconstruct the same.

¶19

5. For the purpose of formation of even a prima facie view that construction of the subject bridge is proceeding on the basis of a faulty design, there has to be some materials on record before us. However, nothing of substance has been placed on record except a bald assertion of a faulty design and a few photographs. While exercising our power of judicial review, we do not sit in appeal over decisions taken by experts in the field of engineering who, we presume, must have applied their mind for the purpose of construction of the subject bridge. A bald assertion of a faulty design cannot afford reason to interfere. No legal infirmity in the decision-making process has been brought to our notice.

¶20

6. To our minds, invocation of the public interest jurisdiction by the petitioner based on incomplete data and facts should not be encouraged. More so, when 95% of the

¶21

¶22

7-PIL-7-2022

¶23

work is reportedly complete and the balance work is proposed to be completed by November, 2022.

¶24

7. We see no merit in the PIL petition. The same stands dismissed. No costs.

¶25

(MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶26

Digitally signed byPRAVIN PRAVINDASHARATH DASHARATHPANDIT PANDIT Date: 2022.10.11 12:42:18 +0530

¶27

Santosh Harishchandra Kanojia v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Harishchandra Kanojia v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul Nandu Kamble Vs State of Maharashtra Thr Principal Secretary Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Dileep v Saptarshi and 2 Ors. vs Assistant Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai-H West Ward and 3 Ors.

Faiyyaz Mullaji Vs the Secretary Urban Devp. Dept and Ors.

Sunil Vishwanath Kamble Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rahul Narayan Lathi Vs State Government of Maharashtra through Revenue Secretary

Varun Dev Jha and Ors. vs Securities and Exchange Board of India and Ors.

Sanjaykumar Damodar Surve Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary and Ors.

Dileep v Saptarshi and 2 Ors. vs Assistant Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai-H West Ward and 3 Ors.

Vilas Ramu Mane and Ors. vs Ramu Ranu Mane(Deceased) Bhau Ganu Mane(Decd.Thr.Lrs) Sou. Sundrabai Birappa Kale and Ors.

Suzlon Energy Limited Ahmedabad Thr. Authorized Signatory Shri. Dhanaji Bhagwan Patil vs the State of Maharastra Thr. Dirstrict Government Pleader Sangli.

Bharatiya Jain Sanghatana Vs the Information Commissioner and Anr.

Ruben Fernasis Pinto vs Pandurang Chitaman Naik

Kum. Sonali D/O Malkari@ Malkarshidh Imade Being Minor Thr. Mother Naturarl Guardian vs Malkari@ Malkarsidha Shivanna Imade and Ors.

Shadab Imam Shaikh and Ors. vs Nilofar Shadab Shaikh and Anr.