Mahadev Narsingh Ranware And ORS v. State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Principal Secretary And ORS

JPP 10. PIL 127.2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

by JYOTI PRAKASH PAWAR Date:

2025.08.19 12:06:05 +0530 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION JYOTI PRAKASH PAWAR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 127 OF 2024 Mahadev Narsingh Ranware and Ors.

... Petitioners V/s.

State of Maharashtra and Ors.

... Respondents _______________________________________ Mr. Sushant Prabhune for the Petitioners Mr. O.A. Chandurkar, Addl.G.P. with Ms. G.R. Raghuwanshi, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 - State _______________________________________ CORAM : ALOK ARADHE, CJ. AND SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

DATE : 18 AUGUST 2025 P.C. :

1.

The Petitioners are the residents of Villages Korhale Khurd and Jinti, Taluka Baramati, District Pune.

2.

In this Petition, filed as Public Interest Litigation, the Petitioners, inter-alia, have questioned the approval dated 29 July 2024 granted by the Superintendent Engineer of Public Works Department for diversion and relocation of a bridge over Nira River from original approval at Option No.3/ Alignment No.2 to Option No.2/Alignment No.1 connecting village Jinti Gaon on Giravi - Madhavkhadak - Wakhari - Mirgaon - Nimbhore - Phadatarwadi - Jinti - Kolhale, Taluka Phaltan, District - Satara. 1/3

JPP 10. PIL 127.2024.doc 3.

The learned Counsel for the Petitions submitted that the location of the bridge has been shifted to benefit of an individual. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on a decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of Prem Chandra Srivastava v/s. State of U.P. and Ors.1.

4.

We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners.

5.

In a Public Interest Litigation, this Court must be satisfied that a substantial public interest is involved. In the instant Petition, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of Public Works Division, Satara, wherein it has been stated that the location of the bridge has been changed as it was on a soft strata. It has further been averred that the bridge is now been constructed on hard strata with open foundation and the decision to change the location has been taken in the public interest as the same would reduce the cost of the bridge.

6.

This Court in exercise of power of judicial review cannot determine the location of a bridge as the aforesaid decision has to be taken by an authority on the basis of the relevant material. It is also pertinent to 2010 SCC OnLine All 1178 2/3

JPP 10. PIL 127.2024.doc note that the Petitioners have not chosen to implead the alleged beneficiary of the change of location of the land. Therefore, the allegation that the location of the bridge has been changed with a view to favour an individual cannot be examined in this PIL Petition. We find that there is no element of public interest involved in the instant PIL Petition. 7.

For the aforementioned reasons, the PIL Petition fails and is thereby dismissed.

( SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. ) ( CHIEF JUSTICE ) 3/3