Disposed

Mangesh Bhaskar Mhatre v. Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation through Commissioner and Ors.

Bombay HC6 May 2024PIL/18/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Public interest litigation over encroachment on land leased for burial purposes. Court recorded that encroachment was removed, directed CIDCO to examine alleged lease violations and act per law, and mandated loudspeaker use within permissible limits, then disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Encroachment grievance declared non-surviving; CIDCO to examine lease violations and act per law; sound amplification capped at permissible limits under GR dated 1 July 2015 and PIL No.173/2010 judgme

Mangesh Bhaskar Mhatre vs Navi Mumbai Municipal… — Environment and Pollution | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

18-pil-18-2024.doc

¶2

Shabnoor

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.18 OF 2024

¶5

SHABNOOR AYUB PATHAN

¶6

Digitally signed bySHABNOOR AYUB PATHAN Date: 2024.08.02 15:02:34 +0530

¶7

Mangesh Bhaskar Mhatre … Petitioner V/s. Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation & Ors. … Respondents

¶8

Mr. Vinayak Gadekar i/by Jidnyara Gadekar for Petitioner. Mr. Aniruddha A. Garge for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶9

Mr. Rohit Sakhadeo for Respondent Nos.4 to 7.

¶10

Mr. Altaf Khan and Mr. Sumit Kothari for Respondent No.8.

¶11

Mr. P. P. Kakade, Government Pleader a/w Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Addl. Govt. Pleader and Mrs. G.R. Raghuwanshi, AGP for Respondent No.9-State.

¶12

CORAM : DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ & AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶13

DATED : AUGUST 1, 2024

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

1. Affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 is taken on record.

¶16

2. It has been stated that the learned counsel representing respondent Nos.1 to 8 that encroachment on the subject land has been removed.

¶17

3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner, however, states that the lease of the land in question was granted by

¶18

¶19

18-pil-18-2024.doc

¶20

CIDCO for burial purpose, however, it is not only that the lessee has been violating the terms of the lease, but also that they are using the same for other purpose such as offering prayers with loudspeaker.

¶21

4. Thus, so far as, the grievance of the petitioner regarding encroachment etc. is concerned, the same does not survive.

¶22

5. As regards the alleged violation of the terms of the lease, we direct that CIDCO shall consider the same and if any violation of the lease is found, it shall act accordingly and take steps which may be permissible under law.

¶23

6. We further direct that if any loudspeaker or any other sound amplifier instrument is used by anybody, it should not exceed the permissible limit as per the Government Resolution dated 1^st July 2015 and as directed by this Court in its judgment dated 13^th March 2015 in PIL No.173 of 2010.

¶24

7. The writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶25

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶26

(CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶27

Mangesh Bhaskar Mhatre v. Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation through Commissioner and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangesh Bhaskar Mhatre v. Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation through Commissioner and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Prof Dr. Nikhil D. Datar vs State of Maharashtra Thr the Chief Secretary and Ors.

Vijay Yashwant Gaykhe vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. PWD Dept and Ors.

Gautam Vilasrao Solanke and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Adv. Arvind Krushnarao Waghmare Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Chief Secretary, Mumbai and Others

Contract for Emergency Medical Services vs the State of Maharashtra through the Prin. Secretary and Ors.

Vidhayak Bharti vs State of Maharashtra

Kailas Gajanan Somase and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Chief Secretary and Ors.

Sanjay Tanaji Gurav vs the Collector, Mumbai Suburban District and 4 Ors.

Gti Infotel Private Limited vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited through Chairman and Managing Director

Prakash Chandru Tupe Vs Dagadu Vittal Tupe

Devthirth Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs the Divisional Joint Registrar and Ors.

Aswini Jitendra Kamble vs State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, School Education and Sports Dept.

Shabbir Gulamgaus Deshmukh vs Union of India Th. Secretary Ministry of Education

Rishabh Rajendra Aggarwal and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.