This PIL challenged the cancellation of a work order for a centralized administrative building due to the Chief Minister directing a stop. The court held that since the project involves public resources for public purpose without harming any individual, it does not constitute a public cause.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
57-PIL.178.2022
jvs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 178 OF 2022
Arun Sitaram Chambhare } Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. } Respondents
Mr. Amjith M. Anandhan i/b. Mr. Sachin R. Pawar R. Pawar for the petitioner.
Mr. P. P. Kakade, Government Pleader with Mr. B. V. Samant, AGP for State.
CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA, Act.CJ.& SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE: FEBRUARY 16, 2023
P.C.:
1. The present petition is filed in the nature of a public interest litigation.
2. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that a decision was taken to construct the centralized administrative building of the Zilla Parishad at Gat Nos. 209-210 (writ land). Tenders were floated. Work order was also issued in the name of M/s. Omkar Constructions on 4th July 2022. Technical approval was also granted and an amount of Rs. 18,06,39,397/- was sanctioned for the construction of the centralized administrative building. Abruptly, on 15th September 2022, the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Maharashtra conducted a meeting, wherein, directions were issued that the work of the centralized administrative building should be stopped. The District Collector, on or about 7th October 2022, under the dictate of the Hon’ble Chief Minister, passed an order stopping and/or cancelling the
1
57-PIL.178.2022
construction work of the centralized administrative building on Gat Nos. 209-210.
3. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the decision was taken by majority of the Grampanchayats to construct the centralized administrative building of the Zilla Parishad as the same would be more convenient. It was because of the convenience of all and the need existing, the decision was taken to construct the centralized administrative building of the Zilla Parishad. Omkar Constructions does not have any right, power or authority to cancel the same nor could have issued directions to the Collector. According to the learned advocate, the Collector also, without assigning any cogent reasons, abided by the dictate of the Hon’ble Chief Minister and cancelled the work of centralized administrative building. According to the learned advocate, the same is illegal, without authority of law and irrational.
4. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that subsequently, the Zilla Parishad has passed resolution; however, this is under political pressure.
5. A public interest litigation certainly can be entertained if public interest is involved in the same. In the present case, it is not disputed that the work of centralized administrative building of the Zilla Parishad has not commenced though the work order was issued. The person, in whose favour the work order was issued, does not have any grievance about the same.
6. It appears that initially, in the year 2017, a proposal was to erect Panchayat Samiti building and for the said purpose, even an amount of Rs. 4,99,99,000/- was sanctioned on 25th January 2019 and a decision was taken to construct the said Panchayat Samiti building on Gat Nos. 209-210. Work order was also issued to one Sudhir Vitthalrao Katore on 11th September 2019.
2
57-PIL.178.2022
However, the work of construction of the said building never commenced and the tender amount was returned back to Mr.Katore. Subsequently, on 4th August 2020, the Sub-Divisional Officer, it appears, opined about availability of land in Gat Nos. 209-210 and thought that the same can be acquired for the purpose of construction of centralized administrative building. On or about 12th March 2021, the land was transferred to the SubDivisional Officer under a resolution of the Zilla Parishad for construction of centralized administrative building. It further appears that approval was sought and accordingly, respondent no. 1 on 4th March 2021, granted approval for the said new centralized administrative building. Technical approval was also granted for Rs. 18,06,39,397/-. The work order was also issued in favour of M/s. Omkar Constructions. There further appears to be the intimation of the Hon’ble Chief Minister, wherein, a meeting was conducted in his presence and under the directions in the said meeting, the construction of the centralized administrative building was directed to be stopped and on 7th October 2022, the District Collector passed an order cancelling the work of centralized administrative building.
7. It further appears that on 14th October 2022, the members of the Zilla Parishad, in their General Body Meeting, passed a resolution bearing no. 116, thereby resolving to construct a Panchayat Samiti building and for that purpose sent a proposal for budgetary sanction of Rs. 1613.76 lakhs.
8. It is not a case that the Government and/or Zilla Parishad land is being given to an individual or a private body. Now, the proposal is to construct a Panchayat Samiti building. The resolution is now also passed by the Zilla Parishad in General Body Meeting to construct the Panchayat Samiti building. Any interference at this stage would amount to stoppage of public
3
57-PIL.178.2022
work to be undertaken. We are not inclined to stop any such public work.
9. It is not a case that some individual is being benefited and/or the purpose of public work is being changed. The Panchayat Samiti like Zilla Parishad is also an instrumentality of the State. In fact the Panchayat Samiti would be the arm of the Zilla Parishad. In that view of the matter, the members of the General Body of the Zilla Parishad thought it fit to construct the Panchayat Samiti building on the said land.
10. It would have been another thing if because of the interference of the Hon’ble Chief Minister some decisions would have been taken illegally benefitting an individual or private institution. Even the earlier contractor, it appears, has not raised any grievance.
11. In light of the above, we find that this public interest litigation does not involve any public cause. The same is dismissed.
12. The amount of Rs. 1 lakh deposited by the petitioner as security stands forfeited. The office is directed to remit the said amount to Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai.
SALUNKE J V
Digitally signed by SALUNKE J V Date: 2023.02.20 14:58:41 +0530
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)
(ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a PIL filed regarding the cancellation of a public work order by the Government involves a public cause requiring judicial intervention.
Whether the decision to reconstruct the work towards a different public purpose warrants stopping the impugned cancellation order.
Arun Sitaram Chambhare
The State of Maharashtra
S. V. Gangapurwala
Sandeep V. Marne
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
