Vinod Gangwal v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS

VPH

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. 31 OF 2014 Vinod D. Gangwal ...

Petitioner Vs.

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

...

Respondents *** The Petitioner in person.

Mr. Ramakant Patil i/b Sandeep V. Marne, for the Respondent No. 2. Mr. Jaydeep Deo, for Respondent No. 3.

Mr. Rafique Dada, Sr. Counsel, Atul Damle, Sr. Counsel, Indranil Deshmukh a/w Ankush Mathkar i/b Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, for Respondent No. 4.

*** CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & Smt. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ.

DATE : SEPTEMBER 6, 2016 PC.

1.

Heard the Petitioner, appearing in person. Incidentally, he is a practicing advocate.

2.

By this petition / PIL which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is seeking following reliefs: "That Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of 1 / 3

mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus.

(a) Directing the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 to take back the possession of premises allotted for General purpose hospital.

(b) Directing the Respondent No. 1 to start departmental proceeding against Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 3.

(c) Directing Respondent No. 2 to start all the required facility for which this plot was allotted to Respondent No. 2 as per terms and condition stipulated in agreement dated 23 September,1997 between NMMC and Cidco.

(d) Directing Respondent No. 1 to register FIR against person involved in this corruption.

(e) Cost of this petition be awarded to the petitioner. (f) For such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case."

3.

The grievance of the Petitioner is that allotment of plot to the NMMC is not in accordance with law, and he has, therefore prayed for an appropriate writ, order and direction directing the Registers to register an FIR against the persons, who are responsible for the illegal 2 / 3

allotment. He is also seeking other consequential reliefs. 4.

The CIDCO allotted the concerned plot to NMMC, who in turn allotted to Respondent No. 4. This transaction took place in the year 1997. The Petitioner has approached this Court almost after 19 years. Secondly, on this ground alone we are not inclined to entertain this PIL.

5.

Apart from that, we are informed that there is another PIL in which similar issue is raised and it is pending in this Court. The grievance of the Petitioner, if any, can be redressed in the said PIL. For both these reasons, we are not inclined to entertain this PIL. PIL is, therefore, dismissed.

Sd/- Sd/- [Smt. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, J.] [V. M. KANADE, J.] Vinayak Halemath 3 / 3