Sateyan Pralhad Mohite v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary General Administration Dept. And ORS

VPH

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. 12 OF 2020 Sateyan Pralhad Mohite ... Petitioner Vs.

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

... Respondents *** Mr. Pradip V. Tapse Patil, for the Petitioner. Mr. P.P. Kakade, Govt. Pleader a/w Smt. R. A. Salunkhe, AGP and Sonawane, Addl. Govt. Pleader for the Respondent - State. Mr. Abhijit Kulkarni, for respondent no. 3 - Corporation. *** CORAM :- SUNIL P. DESHMUKH & G. S. KULKARNI, JJ.

DATE :- MARCH 24, 2021 PC :

1.

Present public interest litigation purports to put up challenge to declaration under the news published in daily "Lokmat"dated 15th November, 2019 declaring that Municipal Commissioner, Pune has invited applications for 2200 houses under Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna in Hadapsar, Kharadi and Wadgaon (Khurd) areas and draws of, and that there are about 5000 eligible persons.

2.

Learned counsel for Petitioner submits that lands from village Kharadi, taluka Haveli, district Pune, 7-12 extracts of which are 1/3

annexed, are Mahar Vatan lands, were not transferrable, and there have been illegal developments. He purports to relate said lands to one Gaikwad family.

3.

Learned counsel Mr. Kulkarni appearing for Respondent No. 3 Corporation submits that no relation of the lands in the petition with announcement in the news paper has been brought forth. Petitioner is merely claiming that transfers have been illegal. No documents have been placed on record. Petitioner is not clear about relevance with news paper report.

4.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it so surfaces that no documents have been placed on record showing that though the lands concerned referred to in the petition are either Mahar Vatan lands or are of Gaikwad family, neither it appears Gaikwad family has approached authorities, nor it is case of the Petitioner that he has made any approach with the authorities. The pleadings are too vague, to disclose nexus between the newspaper report and the lands concerned, referred to in the petition / PIL.

5.

The petition has been lodged without giving proper 2/3

particulars and in the absence of relevant particulars, it would be difcult to have adjudication in the matter. With vague pleadings, a PIL would Digitally signed by Vinayak P.

Halemath Date:

2021.03.25 17:36:16 +0530 Vinayak P.

Halemath seldom be entertained. PIL is thus rejected and is disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) (SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.) Vinayak Halemath 3/3