Rahul Sambhaji Tupe v. State of Maharashtra Thr the Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Mar 2025PIL/33/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court DB, PIL No. 33 of 2025, neutral citation 2025:BHC-AS:16673-DB, decided 08-04-2025 (Alok Aradhe, CJ & M. S. Karnik, J.; order per M. S. Karnik, J.). Keywords: Amanora Park Town, Hadapsar, Pune; social housing component tenaments; free sale units; developer Respondent No.5 City Corporation Limited; Respondent No.4; permissions/sanctions challenged; enquiry report dated 22-12-2023 presented to State Government not acted upon; PIL without material particulars; roving enquiry under garb of PIL not permitted; recourse to appropriate remedies in law; issues kept open; disposed of, no costs.

What did the court decide?

None; the PIL is disposed of keeping the issues raised open, with no order as to costs. ¶¶28

Rahul Sambhaji Tupe vs State of Maharashtra Thr the Urban Development Dept and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the PIL is disposed of keeping the issues raised open, with no order as to costs.

¶¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should entertain a public interest litigation, filed without material particulars, seeking directions to Respondent Nos.1 to 4 to furnish documentation and records relating to the social housing component of the Amanora Park Town project. +1 more

¶¶23

Court's answer

While it is open to aggrieved persons deprived of affordable social housing to raise a grievance, the petitioner cannot be permitted to conduct a roving enquiry under the garb of filing the PIL Petition, nor to use the PIL to have the respondents furnish documents to him.

¶¶23

Ratio / Principle

The Court is not inclined to entertain the PIL in its present form, as it is filed without any material particulars and seeks that the Court direct the respondents to furnish the necessary documents to the petitioner.

¶¶27

Key takeaways

If the enquiry report based on the petitioner's complaint is not being acted upon, it is for the petitioner to take recourse to appropriate remedies in law.obiter¶¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

PIL No. 33 of 2025 (Bombay High Court, Coram: Alok Aradhe, CJ & M. S. Karnik, J.; order per M. S. Karnik, J.; decided 08.04.2025) challenging the entire construction at Amanora Park Town, Hadapsar, Pune and the permissions/sanctions granted to the project. The petitioner, claiming to be an agriculturalist carrying on small scale business, alleged that Respondent No.5-Developer handed over tenaments specially constructed as part of the social housing component as free sale units instead of handing them over to Respondent No.4, to the detriment of persons deserving such tenaments, and that an enquiry report dated 22nd December 2023 presented before the State Government was not acted upon. He prayed for directions to Respondent Nos.1 to 4 to furnish documentation and records relating to the social housing component under the Integrated Town project regulations. Held: it is open to aggrieved persons deprived of affordable social housing to raise a grievance, but the petitioner cannot conduct a roving enquiry under the garb of a PIL; the petition, filed without material particulars, was not entertained, with liberty to pursue appropriate remedies in law if the enquiry report is not acted upon. Issues kept open; petition disposed of; no order as to costs.

¶1

2025:BHC-AS:16673-DB

¶2

29.pil.33-2025.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 33 OF 2025

¶5

Rahul Sambhaji Tupe … Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Maharashtra and ors. .… Respondents

¶8

¶9

Mr Venkatesh Shinde a/w Mr Mayuresh Ingale, Mr Ishan Paradkar, for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mrs Neha S. Bhide, Government Pleader a/w Mr O. A. Chandurkar, Additional Government Pleader, Mrs. G. R. Raghuwanshi, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶11

Mr Amit Karle, for Respondent No.5 (City Corporation Limited).

¶12

¶13

CORAM : ALOK ARADHE, CJ & M. S. KARNIK, J.

¶14

DATE : 8^th APRIL, 2025

¶15

ORDER (PER M. S. KARNIK, J.) :

¶16

The PIL petitioner raises a grievance against the entire construction carried out at the Amanora Park Town, Hadapsar, Pune and challenges the permissions/sanctions granted to the project. Briefly stated the petitioner who claims to be an agriculturalist and also carries

¶17

out small scale business for his sustenance is aggrieved by the alleged fraud and/or irregularities conducted by Respondent No.5-Developer in handing over the tenaments specifically constructed as a part of social

PMB

29.pil.33-2025.odt

housing component as free sale units. Though Respondent No.5 was aware that the social housing components have to be handed over to Respondent No.4, for unlawful gains, Respondent No.5 has acted to the detriment of all those who deserve tenaments as a part of social housing component.

¶22

The petitioner submits that an enquiry was initiated into the irregularities and the report dated 22^nd December 2023 was presented before Respondent No.1-State Government, however the said report has not been acted upon.

¶23

The petitioner has prayed for a direction to Respondent Nos.1 to 4 to provide necessary documentation and records with respect to the social housing component in the Amanora Park Town project till date under the Integrated Town project regulations. The present PIL petition is not filed with all material particulars and in fact the PIL petitioner wants this Court to direct the respondents to furnish the necessary documents to the petitioner. It is always open for the aggrieved persons to raise a grievance if they are deprived of affordable social housing. The petitioner cannot be permitted to conduct a roving enquiry under the garb of filing the PIL Petition. If based on the complaint made by the petitioner, the enquiry report is not being acted upon, it is for the

PMB

29.pil.33-2025.odt

petitioner to take recourse to appropriate remedies in law. We are not however inclined to entertain the present PIL Petition in its present form without any material particulars, at the behest of the petitioner.

¶28

Keeping the issues raised in the PIL Petition open, the PIL Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶29

(M. S. KARNIK, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶30

Signed by: Pradnya Bhogale Designation: PA To Honourable Judge PMB Date: 09/04/2025 20:18:27

¶31

Rahul Sambhaji Tupe v. State of Maharashtra Thr the Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Sambhaji Tupe v. State of Maharashtra Thr the Urban Development Dept 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

Ravindra Mahadev Patil vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. the Principal Sec. Urban Development Dept and Ors.

All Food and Drug License Holders Foundation Throu. Its President A.J. Pandey vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. the Chief Sec. and Ors.

Majid Madarsa Anjuman Raza-Mustafa vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Suhas Hari Pingle vs Union of India through Ministry of Health and Family Welfare

Dinesh S/O. Sheshrao Thakre and Another vs Union of India, Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi and Ors.

Shraddha Bharat Dalvi vs State of Maharashtra Thr the Government Pleader and Anr.

Prabhakar Arvind Kharat and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Parivartan Foundation Charitable Trust Thr Its Secretary vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Chief Secretary and Ors.

Kalyan Toll Infrastructure Ltd. vs Muncipal Corporation Greater Mumbai

Everest Enterprises Thr. Its Sole Proprietor Dhawal Khanna vs Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and Anr.

Anusuchit Jati Jamati Shikshan Sanstha, through Authorized Representative Mr.Bhushan Govind Ramteke vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Department

Shramjivi Co-Operative Housing Society Ltld. vs Union of India through Ministry of Environment and 6 Ors.

Kannamwar Nagar Gulmohar Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., through Its Chairman/Secretary vs Union of India through the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change

Anand Vasti Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., through Its Chairman/Secretary vs Union of India through the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change