Disposed¶20

Ramakant S/O. Tribhuwannath Tiwari v. Nagpur Improvement Trust, Thr. Its Chairman, Nagpur and Others

Bombay HC19 Jun 2025PIL/36/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PIL No. 36 of 2024, Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench, decided 19-06-2025; road development work completion; shoulder carpeting by paver blocks; removal of encroachments; Nagpur Improvement Trust; Executive Engineer Public Works Division No.1 affidavit; drains on both sides; undertaking to complete work within six weeks; disposal of PIL and pending civil applications; no costs; fresh cause liberty; Government Pleader record return.

What did the court decide?

Public interest litigation disposed of with the statement/undertaking taken on record that the remaining road work shall be completed within six weeks by removing encroachments; record to be returned to the Government Pleader/concerned department; pending civil applications disposed of; no costs; liberty preserved for a fresh cause. ¶20

Ramakant S/O. Tribhuwannath Tiwari Vs Nagpur Improvement Trust, Thr. Its Chairman, Nagpur and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the development work of the road in question would be completed, including proper carpeting of the shoulders (by paver blocks or otherwise) and the remaining work involving removal of encroachments.

¶13

Court's answer

The Court disposed of the public interest litigation by taking on record the statement that the remaining work shall be completed within a period of six weeks by removing encroachments.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

Record, if any, is to be returned to the office of the Government Pleader or the concerned department.

¶19

Key takeaways

Pending civil applications, if any, stand disposed of in view of the aforesaid order.ratio¶21
It is clarified that a fresh cause will entail the respective parties to approach afresh.obiter¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Public Interest Litigation No. 36 of 2024 (Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench; coram Nitin W. Sambre and Sachin S. Deshmukh, JJ.; decided 19 June 2025), concerning completion of a road development work, was disposed of. The Court noticed that the road work was yet to be completed, the shoulder not being properly carpeted at majority of the places. An affidavit sworn for respondent no.2 by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Division No.1 brought to the Court's notice that the road was already completed including construction of drains on both sides. Taking on record the statement/undertaking that the remaining work shall be completed within six weeks by removing encroachments, the Court disposed of the PIL, directed return of record to the Government Pleader or concerned department, disposed of pending civil applications, clarified that a fresh cause would enable the parties to approach afresh, and made no order as to costs.

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:5684-DB

¶2

912-PIL-36-2024.odt 1

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 36 OF 2024

¶5

Ramakant Tribhuwannath Tiwari

¶6

vs.

¶7

Nagpur Improvement Trust through its Chairman and others.

¶8

Mr. G. I. Dipwani, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Girish Kunte, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 3. Mr. N. S. Rao, AGP for respondent nos. 2 and 4. Mr. M.R. Joharapurkar, Advocate for intervenors. Mr. A.A.Dhawas, Advocate for intervenors.

¶9

Mr. P.S.Tiwari, Advocate for intervenors.

¶10

CORAM :- NITIN W. SAMBRE and SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE :- 19^th JUNE, 2025

¶11

P. C.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

We noticed that the development work of the road in question is yet to be completed as at majority of the places the shoulder is not properly carpeted may be by paver blocks or otherwise.

¶14

It is assured that the said work shall be completed within a period of six weeks from today.

¶15

The statement is taken on record as an undertaking to this Court.

¶16

Apart from above, we have perused the affidavit duly sworn for and on behalf of the respondent no.2 by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Division No.1. By the said affidavit it is brought to our notice that the road in question is already completed including that of construction of drains on both the sides.

¶17

In view of the aforesaid statement made by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Division no.1, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the public interest litigation by taking the statement on record that the remaining work shall be completed within a period of six weeks by removing encroachments.

¶18

912-PIL-36-2024.odt 2

¶19

Record if any be returned to the office of the Government Pleader or the concerned department.

¶20

With these directions/observations the public interest litigation stands disposed of. No costs.

¶21

Pending civil applications, if any, stand disposed of in view of aforesaid order.

¶22

Needless to clarify that a fresh cause will entail the respective parties to approach afresh.

¶23

( SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)

¶24

Andurkar.

Ramakant S/O. Tribhuwannath Tiwari v. Nagpur Improvement Trust, Thr. Its Chairman, Nagpur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakant S/O. Tribhuwannath Tiwari v. Nagpur Improvement Trust, Thr. Its Chairman, Nagpur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amogh Ghaisas vs the State of Maharashtra through Ministry of Co. Operation Marketing and Textiles

Anil S/O Vinayak Kakade, President of the Labour Law Practitioners Association Solapur and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Prin. Secretary, Industries, Energy and Labour Dept. and Ors.

Gopal Lalji Bhanushali vs the State of Maharashtra through Dide and Ors.

N.G.O Nursing Association Throu. Its President Dr. Hahul Jawanjal vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. Its Chief Sec. 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.

Sandeep Mohanlal Pahuja vs Chief Settlement Commissioner and Ors.

Tushar Pradeeprao Mundhe and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. Its Principal Secretary and Ors.

Jan Mukti Morcha vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shadir Md. Sheikh Rahim Qureshi Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department of Labour and Emplyment, Mumbai and Ors.

Priyanka Prakash Rathod and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Dept. of Education, Mumbai and Others

Umakant S/O Dnyaneshwar Pise Vs Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur, Thr. Its Chief Executive Officer and Others

Santosh Kisanrao Rane Vs the District Maleria Officer, Amravati

Tushar Vilasrao Dandekar vs State of Maha., Thr Principal Secy., General Administration Dept., Mumbai and Anr.

Samir S/O Sadik Kame and Another Vs the Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai and Others