Shri. Ramdas Narayan Tupe v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.156 OF 2010 WITH PUBLIC INTTEREST LITIGATION NO.121 OF 2012 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2429 OF 2012 Sanjay Eknath Tupe and Others

...Petitioners

vs.

Union of India and Others

...Respondents.

Ms. Vrushali Mandal, for the Petitioner in PILs. Mr. Mahesh Rawool i/b. Mr. A.B. Avhad for the Petitioner in WP. No.2429/2012.

Mrs. M.P. Thakur, AGP for the Respondent-State. Mr. N.R. Prajapati, for Respondent No. 1-UOI in PIL No.156/2010. Mr. Vineet Naik, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. S.R. Kulkarni, for Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 in PIL No. 156/2010 and for Respondent No. 3 in PIL No. 121/2012.

CORAM : SHANTANU KEMKAR & MAKARAND KARNIK, JJ.

DATE :

JUNE 21, 2016 P.C.:

In PIL Nos. 156 of 2010 and 121 of 2012 1.

Parties through their counsel.

2.

Through these Petitions the Petitioners have challenged raising of construction of a Special Township Project known as "Amanora Park Town, Hadapsar, Pune". The allegations against the Petitioners is that the project has commenced without obtaining 1/3

requisite permissions from the competent authorities. In reply the developer has stated the details of the steps taken and the permissions granted for the said project. The permissions which has been obtained by the developer have also been filed.

3.

We have gone through the reply filed by the developer which clarifies that there is compliance of relevant rules and regulations. We have also gone through the reply filed by the State Government, more particularly the affidavit filed by Mr. Avinash B. Patil, Dy. Director of Town Planning, Division Pune and we are satisfied that the project has been commenced and completed after obtaining the requisite permissions. Neither the Petitioner nor any of the Respondent-authorities have disputed the aforesaid position. 4.

Having gone through the averments made in the Petitions, reply filed and the stand taken by the State Government as also by the Union of India, we are satisfied that the project has been commenced and completed after taking requisite permissions. In the circumstances, no useful purpose will serve in keeping these Petitions pending. Accordingly we dispose of both the Petitions. 2/3

In W.P. No. 2429 of 2012 :

5.

The learned counsel for the Petitioner on instruction submits that the only relief claimed in this Petition is to direct Respondent No. 2 to decide the pending representation. We have been informed that the said representation has been decided. In the circumstances, no further relief can be granted in this Petition. The Petition has rendered infructuous. Accordingly it stands disposed of. (M.S. KARNIK, J.) (S.S. KEMKAR, J.) 3/3