High Court
Facts
{1} cripli9-22.docdrpIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.9 OF 2022Mahesh Ramchandra Kanade PETITIONERAge – 58 years, Occ – AdvocateR/o “Parakram”, Jaisingpura, AurangabadTaluka & District – AurangabadVERSUS1.The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTSThrough its Principal SecretaryUrban Development Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai2.The Commissioner,Municipal Corporation, AurangabadTaluka and District – Aurangabad3.The District CollectorAurangabad4.The Commissioner of PoliceAurangabad5.Pride Ventures Private LimitedThrough its DirectorNitin Venuprasad BagdiyaAge – 51 years, Occ – BusinessR/o Railway Station, Aurangabad6.Rameshchandra Pannalal VakilAge – Major, Occ – BusinessR/o Pannalal Nagar, Aurangabad7.Ravindrachandra Pannalal VakilAge – Major, Occ – BusinessR/o As above8.Maheshchanra Sureshchandra VakilAge – Major, Occ - BusinessR/o As above
Legal Reasoning
{11} cripli9-22.docdocuments by Respondents No.5 to 8 and Officers of RespondentNo.2 in respect of Permissions No. 998 and 7 for CTS No.14813/118 situated at Pannalal Nagar, Aurangabad and toregister an offence against Respondents No.5 to 8 and all theconcerned Officers. We find that the allegations made by thePetitioner, about submission of fabricated documents, are vagueand are not substantiated by anything worth to be called asevidence. The Petitioner has failed to point out as to whichdocuments are fabricated in the present case. This Court cannotdirect a roving inquiry into the vague and unsubstantiatedallegations made by the Petitioner. 19.The Petitioner claims that Respondents No.5 to 8 havesubmitted false documents and on the basis of the saidfabricated documents, permission No. 998/17-18 and 7/20-21 forCTS No. 14813/118 is granted and, therefore, offence should bedirected to be registered against them.20.If at all, the Petitioner really had material to substantiatehis allegations of forgery and fabrication of documents, being alawyer, he would have approached the police machinery. Heneither approached the police machinery nor has filed privatecomplaint against the Respondents. On failure of the Petitioner toavail alternate efficacious remedy, we refuse to entertain the {12} cripli9-22.docpresent PIL, by which the Petitioner seeks inquiry intounsubstantiated allegations made by him. 21.Public Interest Litigation is a mechanism to protect publicfrom abuse of power and / or inaction of the public authorities.Taking into consideration the facts of the present case, thePetitioner has failed to point out that there is abuse of power onthe part of the Respondent authorities. It is well settled thatunless there is clear abuse of power, the Court should notinterfere in PIL. The Petitioner has failed to bring his case withinthe above parameters.22.The Respondents have brought to our notice representationdated 30th September, 2024 made by the Petitioner to theCommissioner of the Corporation, making similar allegationsagainst another builder of Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar as aremade in the present PIL. 23.Petitioner being a lawyer by profession, he does not belongto EWS or LIG category, therefore, there is no substance in hiscontention that he is espousing the cause of EWS or LIG categorypeople. It is not the case that the builder has to give away 20%land or constructed area free of cost to MHADA. MHADA has topay land rate of the said area to the builder. In this view of thematter, we are of the considered view that there is no public
Arguments
{2} cripli9-22.doc.......Mr. B. L. Sagar Killarikar, h/f Mr. N. T. Tribhuvan, Advocate forPetitionerMr. N. S. Tekale, APP for Respondent - State Mr. A. P. Bhandari, Advocate for Respondent No.2Mr. P. R. Katneshwarkar, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. V. A. Bagdiya,Advocate for Respondent No.5Miss P. S. Anjan h/f Mr. G. K. Naik Thigle, Advocate forRespondents No.7 and 8....…WITHCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2933 OF 2025Pride Ventures India Private Limited, Through APPLICANTits Director, Nitin Venuprasad BagdiyaVERSUSThe State of Maharashtra and Others RESPONDENTS.......Mr. P. R. Katneshwarkar, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. V. A. Bagdiya,Advocate for ApplicantMr. N. S. Tekale, APP for Respondent - State Mr. A. P. Bhandari, Advocate for Respondent No.2Mr. B. L. Sagar Killarikar, h/f Mr. N. T. Tribhuvan, Advocate forRespondent No.5Miss P. S. Anjan h/f Mr. G. K. Naik Thigle, Advocate forRespondents No.6 and 8....… [CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, & SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. J.]RESERVED ON : 21 st AUGUST, 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 22 nd SEPTEMBER, 2025 {3} cripli9-22.docJUDGMENT (PER NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.):1.This Criminal Public Interest Litigation is filed for followingrelief:“C.By issuing writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writorder or direction in the like nature, this Hon’ble Court may bepleased to direct the respondent authorities to conduct an inquiry inrespect of submission of false documents by the respondent nos. 5 to 8and officer of respondent no.2 in respect of permission no. 998 and 7for CTS no. 14813/118 situated at Pannalal Nagar, Aurangabad andin respect of submission of fabricated documents by them andthereafter to register an offence against the respondent nos. 5 to 8and all concerns and for that purpose issue necessary orders.”2.The Petitioner, who is a practicing lawyer, has filed presentCriminal Public Interest Litigation contending that, RespondentsNo. 5 to 8 obtained construction permission No. 406/2005 dated3rd December, 2005, however, no construction was carried out onPlot bearing CTS No.14813/118, situated at Pannalal Nagar,Aurangabad (hereinafter will be referred as “said property”). Asper Section 48 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act,the permission is required to be renewed every year, which isvalid up to 3 years and thereafter, it lapses. Respondents No.5 to8 filed application before the Town Planning Department ofRespondent No.2 Municipal Corporation, seeking constructionpermission in respect of the said property and Respondent No.2, {4} cripli9-22.docwithout following due process of law and guidelines issued by theGovernment from time to time, issued construction permissionNo. 998/17-18, on 1st March, 2018.3.Respondents No.5 to 8 again filed Application seekingrevision in construction permission and the authorities of theMunicipal Corporation issued revised permission No. 07/20-21 on14th May, 2020.4.According to the Petitioner, since the area of construction is5644.40 square meter, in view of the provisions of Governmentnotification dated 8th November, 2013, 20% of the total plot areais required to be kept for MHADA, however, ignoring thisnotification, the Authorities have held that since the earlierpermission was granted in the year 2005, therefore, provisions ofnotification dated 8th November, 2013 are not applicable. ThePetitioner further contends that it is mentioned in the inspectionreport of the concerned engineer, in the year 2018 that, the plotwas open plot and there is no construction. The constructionpermission is given on the basis of measurement map preparedby the Taluka Inspector of Land Records and it is prepared on thebasis of information given by the land owners and at theirinstance i.e. Respondents No.5 to 8.5.The Petitioner claims that incorrect map is prepared, which {5} cripli9-22.docis against development plan sanctioned by the Government. ThePetitioner has further contended that, the concerned Engineerhas shown that there are minor modifications in the reservationof the land for school and some area is converted into residentialarea from the portion of the said property. As per Governmentnotification dated 29th May, 2004 0.10 Hectare area is deletedfrom site No. 248 primary school. As per certified copy of the DPplan, given to the Petitioner, deleted area comes to 1375 squaremeters that means 375 square meter excess land is shown to bedeleted in the DP plan. Therefore, 375 Square Meter land isgrabbed by Respondents No.5 to 8 in collusion with Officers ofthe Town Planning Department of the Municipal Corporation.6.The Petitioner further contends that, while grantingconstruction permission in the year 2005, the then Engineer hadspecifically mentioned in the Inspection Report at para 18 that,towards east side of the said property, there is nala and thereshould not be any obstruction to the flow of the said nala and theowner must obtain permission from the concerned Departmentbefore seeking construction permission. Respondents No. 5 to 8have not obtained any permission from the concerneddepartment and without seeking permission, width of the nala isshifted. As per section 20 of the Maharashtra Land RevenueCode, Nala belongs to the State Government and, therefore, for {6} cripli9-22.docany permission in respect of Nala for construction, permission ofthe State Government is necessary.7.According to the Petitioner, as per building bye laws,construction is not permissible within 6 meter from the edge ofwater mark of nala, but from the permission granted toRespondents No.5 to 8, it is clear that construction of building“C” is not permissible and the amenities shown in the plan,including swimming pool are not permissible. The Petitioner fileda detail Application / Representation to Respondent No.2 –Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation and prayed forcancellation of commencement certificate issued in the year2018 and revised in 2020 in favour of Respondents No. 5 to 8and also requested to register an offence against RespondentsNo.5 to 8 and all the concerned for grabbing the land andpreparation of false documents.8.The Petitioner had submitted representation dated 10thAugust, 2021 to the Commissioner of Municipal Corporationmaking allegations made in the PIL. It is, therefore, submittedthat, before seeking writ of mandamus, the Petitioner hasapproached the concerned authorities. According to thePetitioner, the revised permission is illegal and the same is givenby circumventing the mandatory condition of notification dated {7} cripli9-22.doc8th November, 2013, which mandates 20% of net plot area to beprovided for construction to Economical Weaker Section / LowerIncome Group tenements, which area has to be handed over toMHADA at the land rate in the annual statement of the landprepared by the Inspector General of Registration of MaharashtraState. 9.On behalf of Respondent No.2, Deputy Director, TownPlanning, Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad has filed replyaffidavit, stating that, this Criminal Public Interest Litigation isfiled without doing any research. Since the Petitioner has givenup challenge to the commencement certificate dated 1st March,2018 and revised permission dated 14th May, 2020, the Petitioneris not entitled to make any grievance regarding grant ofpermission by the Corporation and on this ground alone, theCriminal Public Interest Litigation is liable to be dismissed. It isaverred that, by notification dated 25th May, 2004, reservation ofprimary school is deleted. Since the Petitioner is makinggrievance regarding deletion of reservation, after lapse of 18years, the same may not be entertained. It is also clarified thatthe area stated in the development plan is shown in theindicative map and the same is required to be measured by theauthorities of the land records department. {8} cripli9-22.doc10.So far as contention of the Petitioner as regards nala, asstated in the inspection carried out in the year 2005, isconcerned, it is submitted that, the same refers to water streamand permission was granted by the Corporation, excluding theportion affected by the water stream, for calculating the FSI.11.Locus of the Petitioner is also challenged. It is submittedthat the petitioner has failed to point out violation of specificrule. It is further contended that, measurement map at page 30of the petition clearly indicates that no nala is passing throughCTS 14813/118. Yet, the area discovered at the time of physicalverification has been deducted while calculating FSI. It issubmitted that permission is not lapsed, since developmentcharges were deposited earlier. It is, therefore, contended that nopublic law element is involved for adjudication in the present PILand, therefore, the PIL may be dismissed with exemplary cost.12.Respondents No.5 to 8, by filing reply affidavit, haveopposed the PIL, by raising similar contentions, as are raised onbehalf of Respondent No.2. It is submitted that the PIL is filedafter completion of the construction of 90 flats.13.Respondent No.5, by filing Criminal Application No. 2933 of2025, has raised preliminary objection as to the maintainabilityof the present PIL, inter alia, on the grounds that, there is no {9} cripli9-22.docallegation of violation of any statutory provision and theallegations of fraud and collusion are not substantiated bydocuments. Vague allegations are levelled and no public interestis pointed out by the Petitioner. The Petition is based onsweeping and unsubstantiated allegations regarding the landencroachment, misinterpretation of development plan,reservation and purported violation of fire safety. Alternateremedy is available to the Petitioner under the MRTP Act andUnified Development Control and Promotion Regulations(UDCPR), Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and Indian PenalCode. The Petitioner has directly approached this Court withoutfirst approaching the statutory authorities. The allegations arevague and unsubstantiated. The PIL is registered withoutfollowing rules framed by the High Court. PIL is not filed forvindication of rights of any vulnerable class nor does it involveviolation of any fundamental right of the marginalized sections.The Petitioner does not belong to any weaker section of thesociety. The PIL is filed with personal agenda of the Petitioner.Hence, the same may be dismissed.14.Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties andlearned APP at length. Perused the memo of PIL and thedocuments annexed with it and the affidavits filed on behalf ofthe Respondents. {10} cripli9-22.doc15.Initially, this petition was filed as Criminal Writ Petition. On14th July, 2022, the Petitioner requested permission to deleteprayer clause “B”, which reads thus :“B.By issuing appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature,this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to set aside the commencementcertificate 998/17-18 dated 01.03.2018 which is revised on14.05.2020 bearing No. 7/20-21 and for that purpose issue necessaryorders”The Petitioner also sought permission to convert presentPetition into Criminal Public Interest Litigation. The Petitioner waspermitted to delete prayer clause “B” and permitted to convertpresent Petition into Criminal Public Interest Litigation. 16.As the Petitioner has given up prayer clause “B”, we arenot going into the merits of the commencement certificate,which was issued to Respondents No. 5 to 8, by RespondentNo.2.17.Claim of the Petitioner that, incorrect map is preparedwhich is against development plan sanctioned by theGovernment, relates back to the year 2004-05. On the ground ofdelay and latches, we refuse to go into the said allegations. 18.Petitioner prays for direction to the Respondent Authoritiesfor conducting an inquiry in respect of submission of false
Decision
{13} cripli9-22.docinterest involved in the present matter. 24.In view of the aforestated reasons, there is no merit in thePIL and the same is, therefore, dismissed. In the peculiar facts ofthe present case, we permit the petitioner to withdraw theamount of Rs.50,000/- deposited by him.25.In view of disposal of the Criminal Public Interest Litigation,Criminal Application No. 2933 of 2025 is disposed of.[ SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE ] [ NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI ] JUDGEJUDGE drp/cripli9-22.doc