Disposed

Undri Housing Society Association Thr. Authori. Ashwin Pralhad Khilare v. Wagholi Housing Societies Association Thr. Director and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Apr 2023IA/1824/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court directed the Pune and Thane authorities to reconstitute and function effectively water supply committees formed earlier under PILs No.25 and 36 of 2016 to address deficit water supply grievances. The court disposed of the main PIL and related interim applications.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondents 6 and 7 to reconstitute the water supply committee and comply with previous directions; disposal of the PIL and interim applications.

Undri Housing Society Association Thr… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

37.126.22-pil.docx

¶2

Digitally signed by TRUSHA TRUSHA TUSHAR TUSHAR MOHITE MOHITE Date: 2023.04.12 10:26:09 +0530

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 126 OF 2022

¶4

Wagholi Housing Societies Association and Ors. ….. Petitioners

¶5

Vs.

¶6

Union of India & Ors. ….. Respondents

¶7

WITH

¶8

INTERIM APPLICATION (ST.) NO.5820 OF 2023 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 126 OF 2022

¶9

Anandvan Parisar Residents Forum ….. Applicant

¶10

In the matter between

¶11

Wagholi Housing Societies Association and Ors. …… Petitioners

¶12

Vs.

¶13

Union of India & Ors. ….. Respondents

¶14

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1824 OF 2023 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 126 OF 2022

¶15

Undri Housing Society Association ….. Applicant

¶16

In the matter between

¶17

Wagholi Housing Societies Association and Ors. …… Petitioners

¶18

Vs.

¶19

Union of India & Ors. ….. Respondents

¶20

Mr. Sattyendra Muley a/w Mr.Pranav Dhakne for the Petitioner

¶21

Mr.Amogh Singh a/w Mr.Pranav Thackur for Respondent no.1 (Union of India)

1/4

Mohite

37.126.22-pil.docx

Mr.P.P.Kakade, G.P. a/w Mrs.R.A.Salunkhe, A.G.P. for the State

¶26

Mr.Ameya Abhay Pitale h/f Mr.Ajit Ram Pitale for Respondent no.4

¶27

Mr.Abhijit P.Kulkarni a/w Ms.Sweta Shah and Ms.Krushna for Respondent no.6, PMC

¶28

Mr.Kedar B. Dighe a/w Mr.Archana Gaware for Respondent no.7 PCMC

¶29

Mr.Rohit Sakhadeo for Respondent no.8, PMRDA Mr.Pankaj P. Deokar for Respondent no.9

¶30

CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA, ACJ & SANDEEP V. MARNE,J.

¶31

DATED : APRIL 10, 2023

¶32

P.C.

¶33

1 Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned counsel for the respective Respondents.

¶34

2 The issue pertains to the shortage of water to the various areas within the limits of Pune Municipal Corporation and Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation.

¶35

3 This court under Order dated 11.10.2017 under Public Interest Litigation No.36 of 2016 and Public Interest Litigation No.25 of 2016 had passed a detailed order regarding the same grievances. This court had directed constitution of a committee in Pune and Thane districts so that the aggrieved party can approach the committee placing their grievance before the committee which can redress the grievance after taking note of the factual situation and hearing all the parties concerned. The court also observed that it would be advisable to have such committee sitting atleast once in two months. The court was of the opinion that in the respective districts of Pune and

2/4

Mohite

37.126.22-pil.docx

Thane, if the committee is formed consisting of Divisional Commissioner, Municipal Commissioner, Chief City Engineer of the respective authorities who is in charge of water supply in the local authority along with Member, Secretary of District Legal Services Authority in respective districts, the same would hear once in two months to address the grievance brought on record by the aggrieved parties, so far as deficit water supply or non-supply of water, coming within the jurisdiction of the above two local authorities.

¶40

4 It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Respondent no.6 that such a Committee was constituted. However, it is submitted that the said Committee is not holding any meetings at present. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, only four times, the meetings were held.

¶41

5 Respondent nos.6 and 7 may proceed ahead with the reconstitution of the said Committee as directed under Order dated 11.10.2017 in Public Interest Litigation No.25 of 2016 and Public Interest Litigation No.36 of 2016. The directions given in the said Public Interest Litigation which are applicable to the Pune Municipal Corporation shall also be read as applicable to Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation.

¶42

6 The directions given under judgment dated 11.10.2017 as referred to above shall be complied with by both the Corporations.

3/4

Mohite

37.126.22-pil.docx

7 The Respondent no.8 shall also take steps for redressal of grievances of the cities with regard to the distribution of water as and when the same is brought to its notice.

¶47

8 With these observations, the Public Interest Litigation stands disposed of.

¶48

9 Both the Interim Applications also stand disposed of.

¶49

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)

¶50

(ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶51

4/4

¶52

Mohite

Undri Housing Society Association Thr. Authori. Ashwin Pralhad Khilare v. Wagholi Housing Societies Association Thr. Director and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Undri Housing Society Association Thr. Authori. Ashwin Pralhad Khilare v. Wagholi Housing Societies Association Thr. Director 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

Balaji Bhaurao Sanap Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary School Education and Sports and Anr.

Prakash Tukaram Vaichal Vs Union of India Thr. Sec. Ministry of Personnel and Ors.

Prakash Tukaram Vaichal Vs Union of India Thr. Sec. Ministry of Personnel and Ors.

Vijay Uttam Doiphode and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Shri. Balbir Singh Sabherwal Vs Union of India Thru the Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Ors.

Ananda Ramchandra Lokhande and Ors. Vs Union of India Thru the Secretary, Ministry of Defence , Dept. of Defence Production and Ors.