Nitesh Mohanlal Doshi v. The Mumbai Municipal Corporation And 2 ORS

(17)-PIL-3-17.doc.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.3 OF 2017 Nitesh Mohanlal Doshi ..Petitioner

Versus

The Mumbai Municipal Corporation and others ..Respondents Mr. Rakesh Agrawal, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. K. H. Mastakar, Advocate for Respondent No.1 - MCGM. Mr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Saket Mone I/by Vidhi Partners, Advocate for Respondent No.3.

CORAM : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, C.J. & SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.

DATE : 27th AUGUST, 2019 P.C.

1] We are not inclined to grant relief prayed for in the Public Interest Litigation for the reason the Petitioner is targeting only one area where a textile mill existed once upon a time and as per the law in Maharashtra on closure 1⁄3rd land of the mill vested in MHADA, 1⁄3rd in the Corporation and 1⁄3rd in the owner.

2] Sanction granted way back on 1st September 2006 to construct buildings in the owner's share has been questioned by filing Public Interest Litigation in the year 2017. The Petitioner wants the Court to interpret the Development Control Regulations and in BGP. 1 of 2

(17)-PIL-3-17.doc.

particular Regulations 23 and 35 in a manner which the Petitioner intends. Succinctly, the Petitioner wants 25% recreational area to be determined with reference to the entire plot of land of the mill and the stand of the Corporation is that the same has to be with reference to the owner's share.

3] We do not venture in the exercise of interpreting the law for the reason the Petitioner has not made any positive assertion of the positive fact that for other mills the law has been interpreted differently vis-a-vis the instant case.

4] That apart the action is belated. Pursuant to the sanction obtained in the year 2006 the constructions have been completed long back.

5] The PIL is dismissed.

SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J CHIEF JUSTICE BGP. 2 of 2