Disposed

Shishir Vivekanand Shetty v. State of Maharashtra through Its Writ Cell (O.S)

Bombay HC3 Sept 2024PIL/39/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PIL raising grievances about the alignment of a Development Plan Road/flyover in Kandivali (East) constructed by the BMC, alleging a 2023 report was not acted upon. Court directed petitioners to represent to the Municipal Commissioner, who must decide feasibility within four weeks by reasoned order; PIL disposed of.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shishir Vivekanand Shetty vs State of Maharashtra… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

403-PIL-39-2024

¶2

Pdp

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 39 OF 2024

¶5

Shishir Vivekanand Shetty & Ors. .. Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶8

Mr. Rishi Nirav Bhatt a/w Yogesh Sankpal, Sameer Khedekar, Makarand Kale for petitioners.

¶9

Digitally signed by PRAVIN PRAVIN DASHARATH DASHARATH PANDIT PANDIT Date: 2024.07.23 18:52:18 +0530

¶10

Smt. P. H. Kantharia, Government Pleader with Mr. Mohit P. Jadhav, Addl. Government Pleader for respondent nos.1 and 2-State.

¶11

Ms. Oorja Dhond i/by Mr. S. K. Sonawane for respondent no.3-BMC.

¶12

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

¶13

DATE: 23^rd JULY, 2024

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader representing the respondent nos.1 and 2/State and Ms. Dhond, learned counsel representing the respondent no.3- MCGM.

¶16

2. In respect of alignment of a road being constructed by the respondent no.3-Corporation, certain grievances have been raised by the petitioners by filing this Public Interest Litigation petition. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the report dated 4^th September, 2023 regarding construction of Flyover/Elevated Road along 36.60 mtrs. wide proposed Development Plan Road from

¶17

¶18

403-PIL-39-2024

¶19

Lokhandwala Township Circle to Thakur Village, through Singh Estate, Kandivali (E) in R/South Ward is not being acted upon.

¶20

3. Since the issue raised in this PIL petition involves technical know-how in respect of construction of Road/Bridge/Flyover, we deem it appropriate to direct the Municipal Commissioner to look into the matter and take an informed decision as to whether alignment of the Development Plan Road is needed and technically feasible. For the said purpose, petitioners shall make a representation to the Municipal Commissioner taking all the pleas which may be available to them and enclosing therewith all the documents, including the report dated 4^th September, 2023, which is available at Exhibit–N appended to the writ petition.

¶21

4. Said representation shall be made by the petitioners within 10 (ten) days from today. Once any such representation is made, the Municipal Commissioner shall summon the requisite information/reports/documents from his subordinates and will take a decision in the matter within next four weeks by passing a reasoned order.

¶22

5. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the PIL petition is finally disposed of.

¶23

(AMIT BORKAR, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶24

Shishir Vivekanand Shetty v. State of Maharashtra through Its Writ Cell (O.S)

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shishir Vivekanand Shetty v. State of Maharashtra through Its Writ Cell (O.S)

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ashish Dnyandeo Mane vs Pune Municipal Corporation Thr. Its Commissioner and Ors.

Animal Rescue Trust through Vineeta Tandon vs Union of India ( Thr Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying) and Ors.

Abhinav Bharat Congress through Pankaj K Phadnisffd vs State of Maharashtra

Vanashakti Public Trust and an Environmental Non -Governmental Organization vs Muncipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai through Municipal Commissioner

Ratan Soli Luth vs Union of India Thr Secretary Ministry of Corporation Affairs and Ors.

Sagar Dnyaneshwar Shinde vs Secretary Maharashtra State Commission and Ors.

Sheth Motishaw Lalbaug Jain Charities vs the State of Maharashtra through Office Government Pleader

Sheth Bherulalji Kanaiyalalji Kothari Religious Trust vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development

Imrana S/O Mahiboob Shaikh Vs Mohammad Ishaq Ahmad Somani and Anr.

Kashibai Devgonda Patil and Ors. Vs Sushila Raosaheb Patil and Ors.

Pramod Murari Pawar and Ors. Vs Ramesh N. Vakhariya and Anr.

Saraf Kaskar Industrial Premises Cooperative Society Ltd. vs the District Deputy Registrar Coopertive Societies and Anr.

Mukand Poly Products vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited

Aditya Construction Company vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary