Disposed¶24

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

Bombay HC21 Feb 2025PIL/10/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay HC PIL No. 10 of 2024 (16-PIL.10.2024), Alok Aradhe CJ & Bharati Dangre J, 21-02-2025 — Ashish Dnyandeo Mane v Pune Municipal Corporation & Ors: enhancement and recovery with 18% interest of Rs.1,83,30,000/- fine on respondent no. 7 for unauthorised road digging during electric cable installation; RTI-disclosed differential penalty rates (Rs.12,192 x 3 per meter for other builders vs Rs.2350 x 3 per meter for respondent no. 7); recovery pending in R.C.S. No. 1838 of 2023 with injunction dated 09-07-2024 by Civil Judge JD (PMC Court), Pune; PIL disposed with liberty to petitioner to intervene; no opinion expressed on merits.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to intervene in civil suit R.C.S. No. 1838 of 2023 filed by respondent no. 7. ¶24

Ashish Dnyandeo Mane vs Pune Municipal Corporation Thr. Its Commissioner and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioner to intervene in civil suit R.C.S. No. 1838 of 2023 filed by respondent no. 7.

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether any relief can be granted to the petitioner in the PIL seeking enhancement of the fine levied on respondent no. 7 and its recovery with interest @ 18% p.a., given that recovery of the fine is pending adjudication in civil suit R.C.S. No. 1838 of 2023.

¶23

Court's answer

No relief as sought by the petitioner in the PIL can be granted because the subject matter, namely recovery of the amount of fine from respondent no. 7, is pending adjudication in the civil suit; no further orders need be passed in the PIL.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The PIL is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to intervene in the civil suit R.C.S. No. 1838 of 2023 filed by respondent no. 7.

¶24

Key takeaways

This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.obiter¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Public Interest Litigation No. 10 of 2024, High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction); Coram: Alok Aradhe, CJ & Bharati Dangre, J; order Per Chief Justice; decided 21 February 2025. Ashish Dnyandeo Mane v. Pune Municipal Corporation & Ors. The petitioner, claiming to be a public spirited individual, sought a direction to respondents 1 to 6 (PMC) to increase the fine of Rs.1,83,30,000/- levied on respondent no. 7 by notice dated 30 November 2022 — after respondent no. 7, holding PMC permission dated 23 May 2022 to install an electric cable, allegedly failed to complete the installation within the prescribed time and unauthorizedly dug the road — and to recover the fine with interest @ 18% p.a. Via an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 the petitioner alleged differential penalty rates: Rs.12,192 x 3 per meter for other builders against Rs.2350 x 3 per meter for respondent no. 7. Counsel for respondent no. 7 informed the Court that respondent no. 7 had filed R.C.S. No. 1838 of 2023 against the PMC seeking declaration and permanent injunction, disputing liability to pay the fine, and that the Civil Judge, Junior Division (PMC Court), Pune, by order dated 9 July 2024, had granted injunction restraining PMC from recovering the fine; learned counsel for PMC confirmed the written statement disputing the claim and undertook to prosecute the suit diligently. HELD: since the subject matter — recovery of the fine — is pending adjudication in the civil suit, no relief could be granted in the PIL and no further orders were required; the PIL was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to intervene in R.C.S. No. 1838 of 2023; the Court expressly recorded that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶1

16-PIL.10.2024

¶2

Jvs.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 10 OF 2024

¶5

Ashish Dnyandeo Mane } Petitioner Versus Pune Municipal Corporation & Ors. } Respondents

¶6

Mr. Amol B. Jagtap for petitioner.

¶7

Mr. Abhijit P. Kulkarni with Mr. Abhishek Roy, Mr. Shreyas R. Zarkar, Mr. Gourav Shahane and Ms. Sweta Shah for respondents 1 to 6. Mr. Surel Shah, Senior Advocate wit Mr.Nachiket Khaladkar for respondent no. 7.

¶8

CORAM: ALOK ARADHE, CJ. & BHARATI DANGRE, J.

¶9

DATE: FEBRUARY 21, 2025

¶10

ORDER: (Per Chief Justice)

¶11

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

2. Rule. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

¶13

3. The petitioner claims to be a public spirited individual and has filed this PIL seeking a direction to respondents 1 to 6 to increase the fine amount levied on respondent no. 7 and to recover the same along with interest @ 18% p.a.

¶14

4. The facts giving rise to filing of the present PIL are that respondent no. 7 had sought permission from Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) to install the electric cable. The application

¶15

¶16

16-PIL.10.2024

¶17

submitted by respondent no. 7 was granted by an order dated 23^rd May 2022. According to the petitioner, respondent no. 7 failed to carry out the installation of electric cable within prescribed time limit and unauthorizedly dug the road. The PMC thereupon on 30^th November 2022 issued a notice to respondent no. 7 and levied fine of Rs.1,83,30,000/-. The petitioner submitted an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and found out that the PMC has levied lesser rate of penalty on respondent no. 7 as compared to other builders. It is pointed out that the PMC had levied penalty @ Rs.12,192 x 3 per meter in respect of other builders, whereas the penalty levied to the respondent no. 7 was @ Rs.2350 x 3 per meter. Hence this petition.

¶18

5. When the matter was called out today, learned counsel for respondent no. 7, at the outset, submitted that the respondent no. 7 has filed a suit being R.C.S. No. 1838 of 2023 against the PMC seeking relief of declaration and permanent injunction, in which the respondent no. 7 has disputed its liability to pay the amount. It is further pointed out that the Civil Judge, Junior Division (PMC Court), Pune, by an order dated 9^th July 2024, has granted injunction restraining the PMC from recovering the amount of fine from respondent no. 7.

¶19

6. Learned counsel for the PMC has stated that the aforesaid civil suit has been filed, in which the PMC has filed a written statement disputing the claim of respondent no. 7. It is further submitted that the PMC shall prosecute the aforesaid civil suit diligently.

¶20

7. In view of the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for respondent no. 7 and learned counsel for PMC, it is

¶21

¶22

16-PIL.10.2024

¶23

evident that no relief as sought for by the petitioner in this PIL can be granted as the subject matter of the recovery of the amount of fine is pending adjudication in the civil suit. In the aforesaid circumstances, no further orders need to be passed in this PIL.

¶24

8. Accordingly, the PIL is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to intervene in the aforesaid civil suit being R.C.S. No.1838 of 2023 filed by respondent no. 7.

¶25

9. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶26

Digitally signed by JAYANT JAYANT VISHWANATH VISHWANATH SALUNKE SALUNKE Date: 2025.02.21 18:46:38 +0530

¶27

(BHARATI DANGRE, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶28

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Prakruti Foundation, Thr. Its President, Deepak Bharatsingh Dixit vs Union of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi and Others

Zoru Darayus Bhathena vs Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation

Kishore Mansukhani Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bhpuendra Govindrao Jadhav vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Chief Secretary and Others

Vilas Kailas Pawara vs the State of Maharashtra Public Works Department through Its Chief Secretary and Others

Mahesh Atmaram Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Others

Umesh Shankarrao Bhole and Others vs State of Maha., Thr.Secretary, Dept. of Agriculture, Animal Husb., Dairy and Fisheries and Ors.

Gram Panchayat Taklibhan through Bapusaheb Keru Shinde and Others vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Mumbai Shahar Berojgar Seva Sahakari Sanstha Federation Limited vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (Mcgm)

Irfan Yakub Mohammad and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Government Pleader and Ors.

Abhishek Enterprises Thr. Its Prop. Radheshyam Mevalal Gupta vs S. P. Enterprises Thr Its Prop. Kamalakar Devandan Yadav

Roxina Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. vs Kantilal Premji Maru

Bayview Projects LLP vs Meherafrin Investments Private Limited

Bhumika Transport vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation Th. Its Storm Water Drain Department