Shrikrishna Mahadeo Kokare v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR.

2025:BHC-AS:32287-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.41 OF 2009 Shrikrishna Mahadeo Kokare

...Petitioner

V/s.

The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

...Respondents

______________ Mr. A.M. Kulkarni for the Petitioner.

Mr. Abhishek T. Ingale i/b. Mr. Umesh Mankapure for Respondent No.2.

Mrs. Neha S. Bhide, GP with Mr. O.A. Chandurkar, Addl. GP and Mr. G.R. Raghuwanshi, AGP for Respondent No.1. ______________ CORAM : ALOK ARADHE, CJ. & SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

DATED : 30 JULY 2025.

P.C.:

1) In this Petition, Petitioner inter alia prays for following reliefs:- (a) quash and set aside Resolution No.194 passed by the General Body of The Municipal Corporation of the City of Sangli, Miraj and Kupwad on 17th/28th January, 2008 at Exhibit "H" by issuing appropriate writs, orders and directions;

(b) quash and set aside all the further actions, decisions taken by The Municipal Corporation of the City of 1 of

Sangli, Miraj and Kupwad in pursuance of the Resolution No.194 passed by its General Body. (c) Grant, pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, stay to the execution and/or operation of the Resolution No.194 passed by the General Body of the Municipal Corporation of the City of Sangli, Miraj and Kupwad on 17th /28th January 2008 at Exhibit "H";

(d) grant, pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, stay to the further actions, decisions taken by the The Municipal Corporation of the City of Sangli, Miraj and Kupwad in pursuance of the Resolution No.194 passed by its General Body; (e) issue, pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, an order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court restraining the Respondent No.2-The Municipal Corporation of the City of Sangli, Miraj and Kupwad, its agents, servants or anyone claiming through it from acting upon the Resolution No.194 passed by the General Body of The Municipal Corporation of the City of Sangli, Miraj and Kupwad on 17th /28th January, 2008 at Exhibit "H";

(f) grant, pending admission of this petition, interim/adinterim relief in terms of prayer clauses (c) to (e) above;

(g) pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case;

(h) award costs of this petition to the Petitioners. 2) Upon being queried, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner fairly submits that during the pendency of the 2 of

PIL, Development Plan has been finalised. It appears that by order dated 28 February 2013 this Court had advised the Petitioner to amend the Petition in view of subsequent development of approval of the plan by the State Government. However, despite grant of opportunity, Petitioner has failed to amend the Petition challenging the final Development Plan. Therefore, the issue involved in the Petition has been rendered academic.

3) Accordingly, the PIL Petition is dismissed as infructuous.

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] [ CHIEF JUSTICE] Signed by: Megha S. Parab Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 31/07/2025 10:50:23 3 of