Dismissed¶50

Kalpesh Chandrakant Yadav v. the Union of India Thr. Its Secretary Ministry of Defence and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Aug 2025PIL/78/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PIL dismissed – Bombay High Court PIL Rules 2010 Rules 5 & 7 non-compliance – delay and laches bar entertaining PIL – NOC Cell Air Traffic Services Air Force Station Pune – Commencement Certificate 3 March 2021 – Concord Co-operative Housing Society – Yashcon Urban Developments LLP – Lohegaon Pune – NOC issue kept open – Balwant Singh Chaufal PIL rules reliance – Bombay Dyeing delay laches – Kalpesh Chandrakant Yadav v. Union of India – PIL No. 78 of 2025 – decided 06.08.2025.

What did the court decide?

The PIL does not comply with the requirements of Rules 5 and 7 of the Bombay High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010. ¶43

Kalpesh Chandrakant Yadav vs the Union of India Thr. Its Secretary Ministry of Defence and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether the petition complies with the mandatory disclosure and affidavit requirements of Rules 5 and 7 of the Bombay High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010. +2 more

¶22

Court's answer

The PIL does not comply with the requirements of Rules 5 and 7 of the Bombay High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010.

¶43

Ratio / Principle

The doctrine of delay and laches applies to PILs; this PIL, filed after an inordinate delay of about four years following the Commencement Certificate of 3 March 2021 and after completion of construction, with no explanation for the delay, suffers from delay and laches and will not be entertained.

¶45

Key takeaways

Since the communication dated 24 January 2024 of the ATS Section of the Air Force records that the record pertaining to NOC granted to Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 is not available, it cannot be inferred that no NOC has been issued.ratio¶46
The issue with regard to non-issuance of NOC is kept open to be agitated in appropriate proceedings; the Court is not inclined to examine it at the instance of the Petitioner.obiter¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Public Interest Litigation No. 78 of 2025 (Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction; oral order per Chief Justice Alok Aradhe, with Sandeep V. Marne, J.) filed by Kalpesh Chandrakant Yadav, claiming membership of Chhava Pratishthan, Pune, challenging construction undertaken by Respondent No.10 M/s. Yashcon Urban Developments LLP on land at Lohegaon, Pune, allegedly without requisite NOC from Air Force authorities. Held: (i) the petition does not comply with Rules 5 and 7 of the Bombay High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010 (framed pursuant to State of Uttaranchal V/s. Balwant Singh Chaufal, 2010(3) SCC 402); (ii) the doctrine of delay and laches applies to PILs (relying on Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. V/s. Bombay Environmental Action Group and Ors., (2006) 3 SCC 434), and the PIL, filed about four years after the Commencement Certificate of 3 March 2021 and after completion of construction without explanation, suffers from delay and laches; (iii) since the ATS Section's communication of 24 January 2024 records that the NOC records for Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 are unavailable, it cannot be inferred that no NOC was issued, and the non-issuance-of-NOC issue is kept open for appropriate proceedings. PIL dismissed.

¶1

JPP 11. PIL 78.2025.doc

¶2

JYOTI PRAKASH PAWAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

Digitally signed CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION by JYOTI PRAKASH PAWAR

¶5

Date: 2025.08.0711:25:15 +0530 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 78 OF 2025

¶6

Kalpesh Chandrakant Yadav … Petitioner

¶7

V/s.

¶8

The Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Ors. … Respondents

¶9

Mr. Rohan Mahadik with Mr. Bhavin Vora i/b. The Juris Partners for the Petitioner

¶10

Mr. Piyush Shah for Respondent nos. 1 and 2 Mr. Shubham Misar i/b. Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh for Respondent No.11

¶11

CORAM : ALOK ARADHE, CJ. AND SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 06 AUGUST 2025

¶12

Oral Order (Per Chief Justice) :

¶13

This Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the Petitioner claiming himself to be a member of one Chhava Pratishthan, Pune.

¶14

In the PIL it is asserted that the aforesaid Chhava Pratishthan is Non-Government Organization which was registered in the year 2008. The Petitioner, who is the member of the aforesaid NGO has formed the institution activity which has been undertaken by Respondent No.10 - M/s. Yashcon Urban Developments LLP on the ground that the Respondent No.10 has not obtained NOC from the concerned authority.

¶15

1/6

¶16

JPP 11. PIL 78.2025.doc

¶17

Facts giving rise to filing of this PIL briefly stated are that Respondent No.6 – Concord Co-operative Housing Society was the owner of the land bearing Survey No. 214 Hissa No.1 and 4, Village Lohegaon, Taluka Haveli, District Pune (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject land’). The same was sold by the aforesaid Society to Respondent Nos. 7 to 9. The Pune Municipal Corporation granted Commencement Certificate (CC) to Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 on 3 March 2021 on the basis of NOC dated 17 July 2019, which was issued by NOC Cell, Air Traffic Services for undertaking construction of building on the subject land. The said Respondents viz. Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 sold the land on 12 May 2021 to Respondent No.10. The Pune Municipal Corporation, on 14 January 2022 granted CC to Respondent No.10. According to the Petitioner, ATS Section of Air Force Station, Pune on 24 January 2024 sent a communication to the City Engineer informing the issuance of CC dated 3 March 2021. Thereafter, the ATS Section of Air Force Station, Pune sought clarification vide communication dated 27 February 2024 from Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 regarding the NOC.

¶18

The Petitioner, thereafter, on 21 October 2024 submitted an intimation to the City Engineer stating that false NOC data was submitted by Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 in respect of CC dated 3 March 2021 and to Respondent No.1 in respect of CC dated 24 January 2024. The instant PIL thereafter has been filed on 25 June 2025. It is contended that the NOC

¶19

2/6

¶20

JPP 11. PIL 78.2025.doc

¶21

dated 17 July 2019 is erroneously issued.

¶22

In view of directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case State of Uttaranchal V/s. Balwant Singh Chaufal¹ , to frame Rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and to discourage the PIL filed with an oblique motive, the Bombay High Court has framed the Rules namely Bombay High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010. Rules 5 and 7 of the aforesaid Rules which are relevant for the purposes of controversy involved in the instant Public Interest Litigation are extracted below for the facility of reference :-

¶23

“Rule – 5. In the petition to be filed under Clause (e) of Rule 4, the petitioner shall disclose .--

¶24

(a) petitioner's name, complete postal and E-mail address, phone number, proof regarding personal indentification, occupation and annual income, PAN number and National Unique Identity Card, if any and registration under the Act.

¶25

(b) the facts constituting the cause of action.

¶26

¶27

(d) the nature and extent of the personal interest, if any, of the petitioner(s).

¶28

(e) details regarding any civil, criminal or revenue litigation, involving the petitioner or any of the petitioners, which has or could have a legal nexus with the issue(s) involved in the Public Interest Litigation.

¶29

(f) petitioner's locus standi, except in a petition filed in public law interest.

1 2010(3) SCC 402

3/6

JPP

PIL 78.2025.doc

¶34

Rule – 7. The Petitioner(s) while filing a Public Interest Litigation Petition under Clause (e) of Rule 4 shall.--

¶35

(a) annexe to the petition an affidavit stating that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique reason in filing the Public Interest Litigation and

¶36

(b) file an affidavit undertaking to pay costs as ordered by the Court, if it is ultimately held that the petition is frivolous or has been filed for extraneous considerations or that it lacks bona fides.

¶37

(c) file an undertaking that he/it will disclose the source of his/its information, leading to the filing of the Public Interest Litigation, if and when called upon by the Court, to do so.

¶38

(d) annuxe to the petition, a copy of the registration certificate and an authorization resolution to file a PIL Petition when the petition is filed by an Association or a like body.”

¶39

In Paragraph 1 of the PIL has disclosed his antecedents in the following manner :-

¶40

“1. The Petitioner states that, the Petitioner is citizen of India, having address as mentioned in the title clause. The Petitioner has been member of Chhava Pratishthan a Non-Government Organization having NGO ID as MH/2022/0311323 and having registration no. F22320/Pune registered since 2008 and is interested in supporting the public cause in the larger public interest especially in the field of technical education. The present petition is more specifically concerned with the national security of the country and the Petitioner has filed the present petition with a sense of duty to contribute to the protection of the defence establishment of the nation and to ensure continued and unhindered operations of the Air Force Stations. The Petitioner is taking keen interest in the social activities and tries to achieve social justice through its efforts. Therefore, the Petitioner is invoking Civil Appellate Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court for the public good/national cause.”

¶41

4/6

¶42

JPP 11. PIL 78.2025.doc

¶43

Thus, it is evident that the PIL does not comply with the requirements of Rules 5 and 7 of the Bombay High Court Public Interest Litigation Rule, 2010.

¶44

It is trite law that the doctrine of delay and laches apply to the PIL as well. (See : Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. V/s. Bombay Environmental Action Group and Ors.² ).

¶45

In the instant PIL the Commencement Certificate was issued on 3 March 2021 whereas the PIL has been filed after an inordinate delay of four years after the construction is complete. The Petitioner waited for the building to complete and thereafter approached this Court belatedly for which no explanation has been offered. The PIL thus suffers from delay and laches and therefore, will not be entertained.

¶46

So far as the issue raised by the Petitioner with regard to nonissuance of NOC is concerned, from the perusal of communication dated 24 January 2024, sent on behalf of ATS Section of the Air Force, it is evident that in the said communication it has been stated that the record pertaining to NOC granted to Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 is not available. Thus, it cannot be inferred that no NOC has been issued. However, the issue with regard to non-issuance of NOC is kept open to be agitated in an appropriate 2 (2006) 3 SCC 434

¶47

5/6

¶48

JPP 11. PIL 78.2025.doc

¶49

proceedings. We are not inclined to examine the same at the instance of the Petitioner.

¶50

Accordingly, the PIL is dismissed.

¶51

( SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. ) ( CHIEF JUSTICE )

¶52

6/6

Kalpesh Chandrakant Yadav v. the Union of India Thr. Its Secretary Ministry of Defence and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalpesh Chandrakant Yadav v. the Union of India Thr. Its Secretary Ministry of Defence and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Zoru Darayus Bhathena vs Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation

Dipak Atmaram Shirodkar vs State of Maharashtra Throu. Govt Pleader and Ors.

Rajesh Sharma vs State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary and Ors.

Adv. Gajanan Anant Divekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Lalchand Avachit Patil vs the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary and Others

Irshad Zakir Qureshi and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra Thor. Its Principal Secretary Ministry of Urban Develoment

Sahil Samad Koor vs Union of India

Gadekar Pratibha Rohidas vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Aditya Birla Housing Finance Limited vs Axis Bank Ltd.

PNB MetLife India Insurance Company Limited vs Ms Fine Four Insurance Corporate Agency Pvt. Ltd.

Rajkumar Shishram Bugalia vs the State of Maharashtra through Government Pleader

Dr. D. G. Thuse vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Kg International Fzco vs Hercules Hoists Limited

Profectus Capital Private Limited vs Shivshakti Industries