{"id":113285,"date":"2011-09-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niraj-vikas-pabale-vs-the-tahsildar-on-21-september-2011"},"modified":"2015-11-20T07:07:40","modified_gmt":"2015-11-20T01:37:40","slug":"niraj-vikas-pabale-vs-the-tahsildar-on-21-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niraj-vikas-pabale-vs-the-tahsildar-on-21-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"Niraj Vikas Pabale vs The Tahsildar on 21 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Niraj Vikas Pabale vs The Tahsildar on 21 September, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: B. P. Dharmadhikari, P. D. Kode<\/div>\n
                                       1\n\n\n\n                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                  \n                          NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.\n\n\n\n\n                                                         \n                           WRIT PETITION  No. 5680\/2007.\n\n\n\n\n                                                        \n    1. Niraj Vikas Pabale, Adult.\n    2. Jayant Ratnakar Gawande, Adult.\n    3. Ashis Ashokrao Chavan, Adult.\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n    4. Pravin Manoharrao Page, Adult.\n    5. Pravin P. Kurhadkar, Adult.\n                         \n    6. Harshada R. Parate, Adult.\n    7. Sau. Hemlata B. Sor, Adult.\n    8. A.V. Burande,  Adult.\n                        \n    9. N.S. Taltumbde, Adult.\n    10. Sanjay Laxmanrao Janotkar, Adult.\n    11. S.H. More, Adult.\n    12. Ravindrasingh M. Dhandoria,  Adult.\n      \n\n    13. Rashmi Das, Adult.\n    14. Sau. Pushapa G. Gokhe, Adult.\n   \n\n\n\n    15. D.P. Khurbude, Adult.\n\n    All citizens of Shri Swami Samarth Nagari,\n    through it's Shri Swami Samarth Anyaya\n\n\n\n\n\n    Niwaran Samiti, Nalwadi, Tq. and \n    District Wardha.                                                       ....PETITIONERS.\n\n\n                                           VERSUS\n\n\n\n\n\n    1. The Tahsildar, Wardha,\n        Tq. and District Wardha.\n\n    2. The Collector, Mr. E.Z. Khobragade,\n        Wardha, for State of Maharashtra.\n\n\n\n\n                                                          ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:45:32 :::\n                                   2\n\n\n    3. The Sub-Divisional Officer,\n        Tahsil Office, Wardha.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                         \n    4. Gram Panchayat, Nalwadi,\n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n        through it's Secretary, Tah.\n        And District Wardha. \n\n    5. Mahila Vikas Sanstha, Wardha\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n        Reg. No. 834\/90 through its \n        President, Rajesh Ghanshyamji\n        Bhoyar, R\/o. Nalwadi, Tq. and\n        District Wardha.\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n    6. Zilla Parishad, Wardha, through its\n        Chief Executive Officer, Wardha.\n                        ig                                ....RESPONDENTS\n                                                                         . \n\n\n                                --------------------------\n                      \n                    Shri  Anil Kilor, Advocate  for Petitioners.\n        Shri  A.S. Sonare, learned A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.  1 to 3.     \n     Shri M.R. Joharapurkar, Advocate  for Respondent 4 - Gram Panchayat.\n           Shri  Anjan De, Advocate  for Respondent no. 5 -  Society.\n      \n\n         Shri J.S. Mokadam, Advocate  for Respondent 6 -Zilla Parishad.\n                                 -----------------------\n   \n\n\n\n                           CORAM :  B.P. DHARMADHIKARI\n                                       &  P.D. KODE, JJ. \n<\/pre>\n
    Date of reserving the Judgment. -            02.08.2011\n    Date of Pronouncement.          -            21.09.2011.\n\n\n\n\n\n            \n    JUDGEMENT.    (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J). \n\n\n<\/pre>\n
    1.         This writ petition is entertained as Public Interest Litigation <\/p>\n
    (PIL) as per the orders of Hon’ble the Chief Justice dated 30\/10\/2007.\n<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:32 :::<\/span>
\n                                         3<\/span><\/p>\n
    Briefly   stated,   the   grievance   is   about   an     activity   in   the   shape   of   an <\/p>\n
    educational   institute   and   a   students   hostel   in   residential   area.   It   is <\/p>\n
    alleged that the   construction is raised without legal sanction from the <\/p>\n
    competent authority. Respondent No. 5 before this Court is that institute <\/p>\n
    while Respondent No. 4 is the Gram Panchayat which claims to have <\/p>\n
    sanctioned the same under Section  52 of the Bombay Village Panchayat <\/p>\n
    Act,1958,   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “the  1958   Act”   for   short).\n<\/p>\n
    Respondent   no.   6   is   the   Zilla   Parishad     which   can   control\/suspend <\/p>\n
    actions\/resolutions  passed by Gram Panchayat in  this  respect. At one <\/p>\n
    time it was the stand of authorities that Standardized building bye laws <\/p>\n
    for   B   and     C   class   municipal   councils   prescribed   under   Maharashtra <\/p>\n
    Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats And Industrial Townships Act (40 <\/p>\n
    of 1965) needed to be followed (hereinafter referred to as “the  1965 <\/p>\n
    Act” for short). The cognizance of grievance as PIL is also questioned on <\/p>\n
    various grounds and  one of the contentions is subsequent amendment <\/p>\n
    to letter treated as PIL by the petitioners, can not be looked into as its <\/p>\n
    part and  parcel.\n<\/p>\n
    2.            With this background, we proceed to narrate the facts.\n<\/p>\n
    (A).          15 petitioners wrote a letter dated 8\/10\/2007 to the Hon’ble <\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:32 :::<\/span>
\n                                       4<\/span><\/p>\n
    The Chief Justice of this Court by designation as also by name ( then the <\/p>\n
    Hon’ble     Chief   Justice     Shri   Swatantra   Kumar)   as   also   to     the   then <\/p>\n
    Administrative Judge at Bombay Shri J.N. Patel (using name also) and <\/p>\n
    to the Administrative Judge at Nagpur. It was received by the office of <\/p>\n
    Hon’ble     The   Chief   Justice   on   15\/10\/2007.   Registrar(Judicial-I)   at <\/p>\n
    Mumbai on 29-10-2007 placed it with a note before the Hon’ble  Chief <\/p>\n
    Justice and sought orders as to – (A) whether said communication be <\/p>\n
    treated as PIL and sent to Nagpur Bench or then (B) whether it be filed <\/p>\n
    after   informing   the   writers   that   they   may   take   recourse   to   remedy <\/p>\n
    available in law, if so advised.     Hon’ble   The Chief Justice approved <\/p>\n
    part  “A” of  the  note.  We  are  making  reference  to this   letter  in  more <\/p>\n
    details in paragraph 8 below.\n<\/p>\n
    (B).         Deputy   Registrar   of   High   Court   at   Nagpur   had   in   the <\/p>\n
    meanwhile   on   24\/10\/2007   placed   the   very   same   letter   received   by <\/p>\n
    Senior or Administrative Judge at Nagpur with similar note and sought <\/p>\n
    directions   whether   (A)   it   be   treated   as   PIL,   (B)   whether   report   of <\/p>\n
    Collector. Wardha be called within one month or then (C) whether to <\/p>\n
    file it after informing the applicants to take recourse to appropriate legal <\/p>\n
    remedy, if they  so desired. The Hon’ble  Administrative or Senior Judge <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:32 :::<\/span>
\n                                    5<\/span><\/p>\n
    at Nagpur  approved option “B”. This therefore shows that appropriate <\/p>\n
    cognizance was taken at Nagpur as also at Mumbai independently by the <\/p>\n
    competent Hon’ble  Judges.\n<\/p>\n
    (C).        Matter was listed on 17\/12\/2007 before the Division Bench <\/p>\n
    presided   over   by   same   Senior   Judge   only   and   was   adjourned   to <\/p>\n
    19\/12\/2007. The report was already called from the office of Collector <\/p>\n
    Wardha   by   Joint   Registrar   (Criminal-1)   of   this   Court   vide <\/p>\n
    communication   dated   29\/11\/2007   as   per   the   directions   of   Hon’ble <\/p>\n
    Senior\/Administrative Judge at Nagpur. Said report dated 6\/14-12-2007 <\/p>\n
    was received and on 17\/12\/2007 itself orders of Hon’ble  Senior Judge <\/p>\n
    before whom the matter was listed earlier on same day on judicial side <\/p>\n
    were procured to tag that report with writ petition. Accordingly, report <\/p>\n
    was made available to the same Division Bench on next date i.e.,   on <\/p>\n
    19\/12\/2007. On that day after hearing, this Court issued notice before <\/p>\n
    admission   returnable   on   9\/1\/2008.   Matter   was   also   directed   to   be <\/p>\n
    placed before High Court Legal Services Sub-committee. On 10\/1\/2008 <\/p>\n
    the matter appeared on daily board and   Petitioners then were given <\/p>\n
    assistance of  an advocate as amicus curiae. On 29\/1\/2008,  Respondent <\/p>\n
    no. 5 filed its  submissions  mostly raising challenge to the  cognizance <\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:32 :::<\/span>
\n                                       6<\/span><\/p>\n
    and   maintainability.   Respondent   no.   4   Gram   Panchayat   also   filed   its <\/p>\n
    reply on that day. Reply affidavit dated 1\/2\/2008 of Respondent no.1 <\/p>\n
    came to be filed on 7\/2\/2008 and  by respondent no.3 on 8\/2\/2008. On <\/p>\n
    15\/2\/2008, petitioners engaged their present Advocate. On 25\/4\/2008, <\/p>\n
    petitioners   sought   adjournment   to   file   amendment   application.   Civil <\/p>\n
    Application No. 3739\/2008 filed by them for amendment was granted <\/p>\n
    on   9\/6\/2008   after   noting   that   petition   was   still   to   be   admitted   and <\/p>\n
    respondents would not suffer any prejudice. On 15\/9\/2008, notice came <\/p>\n
    to be issued to added respondent no.6 Zilla Parishad. On that day, C.A.\n<\/p>\n
    5380\/2008 seeking consequential amendment to its written submissions <\/p>\n
    was   also allowed.  Office   endorsement    dated   1\/10\/2002  reveals  that <\/p>\n
    respondent   no.6   was   served   and     its   advocate   filed   appearance   on <\/p>\n
    2\/2\/2009.       It   filed   it’s   written   submission   on   20\/4\/2009.     On <\/p>\n
    10\/8\/2009  petitioners  filed rejoinder    as  allowed  by  this  Court.  Zilla <\/p>\n
    Parishad filed additional affidavit on 12\/11\/2009. On 3\/2\/2010, time <\/p>\n
    was given to petitioners to produce development plan of the concerned <\/p>\n
    area     On   9\/3\/2010,   petitioners   filed   additional   affidavit   and   another <\/p>\n
    additional affidavit on 1\/9\/2010. Respondent no.5 filed its reply to that <\/p>\n
    additional affidavit on 5\/10\/2010.\n<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:32 :::<\/span>
\n                                        7<\/span><\/p>\n
    (D).         On   1\/12\/2010,   this   Court   directed   respondent   no.5   to <\/p>\n
    disclose document by which it acquired title to plot on which subject <\/p>\n
    building   is   standing,   when   and     under   whose   orders   plots   were <\/p>\n
    consolidated and  under whose signature proposed plan was submitted <\/p>\n
    for approval to Gram Panchayat. On 13\/12\/2010, respondent no.5 filed <\/p>\n
    a pursis vide stamp 13070\/2010. Typed word “submission” in its title <\/p>\n
    clause was scored of and   replaced by handwritten word “pursis”.   On <\/p>\n
    21\/12\/2010,   respondent   no.5   filed   Civil   Application   (W)   No. <\/p>\n
    3251\/2010   seeking   leave   to   amend   submissions   which   came   to   be <\/p>\n
    allowed on 12\/1\/2011. What has been amended as per this order is this <\/p>\n
    pursis   which   was\/is   without   any   affidavit.   Consequentially,   word <\/p>\n
    “pursis”   on   it   appears   to   be   scored   and     word   “submission”   is   again <\/p>\n
    added by hand on this stamp 13070\/2010. This position can be seen <\/p>\n
    from   office   note   dated   25\/1\/2011   which   also   initially   used   word <\/p>\n
    “pursis” and  later corrects it to read “submission”.  By very same order <\/p>\n
    dated 12\/1\/2011, this Court directed respondent no.4 Gram Panchayat <\/p>\n
    to file separate affidavit in relation  to each structure erected within its <\/p>\n
    jurisdiction giving details of permission, provision of law under which <\/p>\n
    permission   was   granted   and     whether   such   permissions   are   in <\/p>\n
    conformity with law. On 2\/2\/2011, respondent no.4 filed the affidavit of <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:32 :::<\/span>
\n                                      8<\/span><\/p>\n
    its   secretary.   On   4\/3\/2011,   it   filed   additional   affidavit.   Petitioners <\/p>\n
    thereafter   did   not   file   any   additional   rejoinder   and     on   23\/4\/2011, <\/p>\n
    matter   was   adjourned   to   14\/6\/2011     and     then   to   27\/6\/2011.\n<\/p>\n
    respondent   no.5   then   filed   additional   submissions   (already   sworn   on <\/p>\n
    18\/2\/2011) on 14\/6\/2011.   Petitioners   then filed additional affidavit <\/p>\n
    on 22\/6\/2011. On 27th  June 2011, this  Court refused   to first decide <\/p>\n
    preliminary objection of respondent no. 5 about tenability as PIL and <\/p>\n
    respondent no.5 then sought time to file reply on merits. That reply in <\/p>\n
    the   shape   of   additional   affidavit   came   to   be   filed   on   8\/7\/2011.\n<\/p>\n
    respondent   no.5’s   reply   filed   on   21\/7\/2010   to   additional   affidavit   of <\/p>\n
    Petitioners dated 9\/3\/2010 came on record  as wrong case number in its <\/p>\n
    presentation form was corrected on 19\/7\/2011.\n<\/p>\n
    (E).         The   letter   sent   by   petitioners   and                     affidavits, <\/p>\n
    replies\/submissions filed by respective parties need reference in detail <\/p>\n
    and  to avoid prolixity, we find it appropriate to mention it little later.\n<\/p>\n
    (F).         In   this   background,   We   have   heard   respective   Counsel   for <\/p>\n
    parties from  18\/7\/2011.\n<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:32 :::<\/span>
\n                                        9<\/span><\/p>\n
    3.               Arguments of Shri  Kilor, learned Counsel  for Petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
    (A).             Shri Kilor, learned counsel appearing  on behalf of petitioners <\/p>\n
    pointed out the history in brief already noted above to assert that as <\/p>\n
    Hon’ble   The Chief Justice has already directed the registration as PIL <\/p>\n
    and   facts   disclose   public   interest   involved   as   it   is   case   of   illegal <\/p>\n
    construction  being permitted  on large scale by authorities  responsible <\/p>\n
    for curbing it without any objection and   in defiance of building bye-\n<\/p>\n
    laws, the  objection  to its  tenability is misconceived. He further  states <\/p>\n
    that by amendment details  of very same grievance are furnished and <\/p>\n
    hence,   contention   that   such   amended   part   can   not   constitute   PIL   is <\/p>\n
    without any merit. He reads out the letter accepted as PIL to point out <\/p>\n
    nuisance being caused to all residents due to violations of building bye-\n<\/p>\n
    laws.  He  further   states   that   initially  there  was   only  one   building   but <\/p>\n
    during pendency of writ petition, 5 more buildings have come up. Plans <\/p>\n
    of all these 6 buildings i.e., 5 Hostels and  1 College are all claimed to <\/p>\n
    have been sanctioned by Gram Panchayat under Section  52 of the 1958 <\/p>\n
    Act.   Under  Section  52(2),   remedy   of   appeal   is   available   to   owner  of <\/p>\n
    construction, if he is aggrieved by any condition subject to which such <\/p>\n
    sanction is granted   or then by rejection of permission. He also invites <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:32 :::<\/span>
\n                                      10<\/span><\/p>\n
    attention  to confusion  later on  attempted to be  introduced about the <\/p>\n
    building   bye-laws   or   regulations   relevant   in   this   respect.   He   has <\/p>\n
    produced   before   the   Court   charts   showing   area   of   plots   consolidated <\/p>\n
    together by respondent no.5 to support each building and how, even if <\/p>\n
    either of the Rules are applied, the construction is much in excess and <\/p>\n
    illegal. He states that if the Maharashtra Village Panchayat  Extension of <\/p>\n
    Village   Sites   and     Regulation   of   Buildings   Rules,1967   i.e.,  Extension <\/p>\n
    Rules  are held to apply, the plots can not be clubbed and   permissible <\/p>\n
    Floor Space Index (FSI)   or Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is only 40% with <\/p>\n
    requirement   to   leave   marginal   spaces   as   stipulated   therein   open.   If <\/p>\n
    Standardized Building Bye-laws for B and   C class Municipal Councils <\/p>\n
    framed under 1965 Act i.e., Municipal Rules are to be looked into, said <\/p>\n
    FSI   or   FAR   is   60%   with   similar   riders.   Hence,   in   either   case   the <\/p>\n
    structures as raised are in excess and  illegal. He also points out that as <\/p>\n
    per    Extension  Rules building  can be  only single  storied while   under <\/p>\n
    Municipal Rules, it may have only 3 stories i.e.,ground plus two floors.\n<\/p>\n
    He   argues   that   no   order   passed   by   any   authority   permitting <\/p>\n
    consolidation or clubbing of different plots are\/is pointed out  by any of <\/p>\n
    the Respondents and directions issued by this Court on 12\/1\/2011 have <\/p>\n
    not been complied with. Gram Panchayat had granted permission only <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:32 :::<\/span>
\n                                      11<\/span><\/p>\n
    for   a   residential   house   but   respondent   no.5   raised   a   huge   multistory <\/p>\n
    College. When building  permission  was  applied, respondent no.5 was <\/p>\n
    not the owner and  after cognizance by this Court, a gift deed has been <\/p>\n
    executed by owners in favour of respondent no.5 in 2010.\n<\/p>\n
    (B).         Attention is invited to written submission filed by respondent <\/p>\n
    no.5 through its President where it is stated that provisions of Municipal <\/p>\n
    Rules or Bye-laws for “C” class municipal council will be applicable  in <\/p>\n
    Gram Panchayat area and   both “R-1” and   “R-2” uses will be legal in <\/p>\n
    residential   zone.   Reply   of   respondent   no.1   Tahsildar   holds   Gram <\/p>\n
    Panchayat guilty and  permission  to construct hostel as illegal. Reply of <\/p>\n
    respondent   no.3   Sub-Divisional   Officer   (SDO)   also   records   similar <\/p>\n
    findings.   Both   these   Government   Authorities   have   requested   Chief <\/p>\n
    Executive   Officer   i.e.,   respondent   no.6   to   initiate   appropriate   action <\/p>\n
    against Gram Panchayat in the matter. Reports submitted by SDO on <\/p>\n
    14\/12\/2007   to   respondent   no.6,   by   Block   Development   Officer, <\/p>\n
    Panchayat   Samiti,   Wardha   on   20\/11\/2007,   spot   inspection   report   of <\/p>\n
    Naib-Tahsildar,   Wardha   dated   17\/11\/2007   and   report   of   the   Chief <\/p>\n
    Executive Officer of respondent no.6 Zilla Parishad dated 5\/12\/2007 are <\/p>\n
    all on same lines. Learned Counsel asserts that subsequent change in <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:32 :::<\/span>
\n                                       12<\/span><\/p>\n
    stand   of   Zilla   Parishad   is   malafide.     Apparent   difference     as   per <\/p>\n
    sanctioned map and   photograph of actual structure is highlighted to <\/p>\n
    contend   that   it   is   undue   influence   and     abuse   of   position   which   has <\/p>\n
    facilitated   this   change.   Modification   as   sought   on   21\/7\/2010   by <\/p>\n
    respondent no.5  is also pointed out. Reply affidavit filed by respondent <\/p>\n
    no.6 on 20\/4\/2009 is pointed out to show stand therein that sanction <\/p>\n
    granted is as per Section  52 of the 1958 Act read with Extension Rules.\n<\/p>\n
    Later affidavit filed on 12\/11\/2009 by it is also pointed out to show how <\/p>\n
    it   attempts   to   explain   the   earlier   report   of   its   CEO   and     erroneously <\/p>\n
    interprets   communication   dated   14\/10\/1994   in   order   to   favour <\/p>\n
    respondent no.5. He states that directions issued on 1\/12\/2010 are still <\/p>\n
    not obeyed by either respondent no.5 or then respondent no.4 and   6.\n<\/p>\n
    Affidavits   filed  on  18\/7\/2008   and     on   2\/2\/2011  by   respondent   no.4 <\/p>\n
    Gram Panchayat are also pointed out to   show how it now urges that <\/p>\n
    Extension Rules are not applicable.\n<\/p>\n
    (C).         According to him inspite of cognizance by this Court, 4 new <\/p>\n
    buildings have come up and all reports initially prepared without any <\/p>\n
    influence   support   the   cause   and     case   of   Petitioners.   Hence,   these <\/p>\n
    unauthorized structures must be demolished.\n<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:32 :::<\/span>
\n                                      13<\/span><\/p>\n
    4.           Arguments of respondents, other than respondent no.5.\n<\/p>\n
    (A).         Shri   Mokadam,   learned   Counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of <\/p>\n
    respondent   no.6   Zilla   Parishad   points   out   that   as   sanction     given   by <\/p>\n
    Gram Panchayat is as per Section   52 of the 1958 Act and   Extension <\/p>\n
    Rules,   no   action   under   Section   142   thereof   was   warranted.   He   also <\/p>\n
    points   out   the   reasons   for   contending   that  Municipal   Rules    do   not <\/p>\n
    apply.\n<\/p>\n
    (B).         Shri   Johrapurkar, learned counsel   appearing on behalf of <\/p>\n
    respondent   no.4   Gram   Panchayat   relies   upon   reply   filed   by   it   on <\/p>\n
    29\/1\/2008 to urge that Municipal Rules permit hostel and  educational <\/p>\n
    institute in “C” class. S.142 of 1958 Act ought to have been resorted to <\/p>\n
    by Petitioners and   cancellation or suspension of the Gram Panchayat <\/p>\n
    resolutions   granting   sanctions   ought   to   have   been   sought.   Thus   an <\/p>\n
    alternate and  equally efficacious remedy was\/is available to them. From <\/p>\n
    paragraph no. 2 onwards of later affidavit filed on 2\/2\/2011, sanctions <\/p>\n
    or permissions given by respondent no.4 from time to time, are shown.\n<\/p>\n
    Extension Rules of 1967 are argued to be not relevant as there is no new <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                       14<\/span><\/p>\n
    village site here and  also no appointment of any extension officer. It is <\/p>\n
    further urged that all sanctions are in the name of recorded owners only.\n<\/p>\n
    Rule 40 of the Meeting Rules governing the meetings of Gram Panchayat <\/p>\n
    requires each resolution to be sent to Zilla Parishad and    Section  137 <\/p>\n
    of the  1958  Act  enables  Zilla  Parishad   to  call   for  records  and     Zilla <\/p>\n
    Parishad never found it necessary to exercise that power. Bar of action <\/p>\n
    provided under Section  180(2) of 1958 Act is also pressed into service.\n<\/p>\n
    Learned Counsel in this background, points out a statement on affidavit <\/p>\n
    that   it   did   not   receive   any   notice   of   inquiry   allegedly   conducted   by <\/p>\n
    authorities. He further points out that  3 modifications in building plan <\/p>\n
    changing it from House to Hostel were allowed as per law.\n<\/p>\n
    (C).         Learned   A.G.P.   relies   upon   the   communication   dated <\/p>\n
    14\/10\/1994   and     also   material   brought   on   record   through   reply <\/p>\n
    affidavits to state that the constructions are found illegal by the State <\/p>\n
    Government and  also by the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad.\n<\/p>\n
    5.           Arguments of respondent no.5 – Society.\n<\/p>\n
                 Shri   De,   the   learned   Counsel   for   respondent   no.5   has <\/p>\n
    advanced arguments firstly about the validity of the cognizance taken by <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                        15<\/span><\/p>\n
    this Court as PIL, its maintainability and lastly, on merits; clarifying that <\/p>\n
    all   contentions     were   without   prejudice   to   each   other     and     in   the <\/p>\n
    alternative.\n<\/p>\n
    (A).          He   contends   that   letter   originally   written   to   Hon’ble   The <\/p>\n
    Chief   Justice   is   making   grievance   about   only   one   construction   i.e., <\/p>\n
    Hostel on plot no. 12 to 17 in residential area. The structure is stated to <\/p>\n
    be G.F. + 3 stories and nuisance due to its use to only 15 writers of that <\/p>\n
    letter. It is not in representative capacity.  This letter was placed before <\/p>\n
    the Hon’ble   Chief Justice by Registrar with two options. The alleged <\/p>\n
    cause has   arisen in territorial jurisdiction of Nagpur Bench and hence, <\/p>\n
    cognizance needed to be taken by the Senior Judge  ( also referred as <\/p>\n
    Administrative Judge) at Nagpur. Rule 2A of the Bombay High Court <\/p>\n
    Appellate Side Rules, 1960 ( hereinafter referred to as “the Appellate <\/p>\n
    Side   Rules”   for   short),   then   regulating   the   PIL   are   relied   upon.   It   is <\/p>\n
    urged that said Judge is aware normally of prevailing local situation and <\/p>\n
    authority given to such Hon’ble  Judge therefore, is, with some purpose.\n<\/p>\n
    2003(4) Mah.L.J. 635 (pl.B)  (Surendra Ramchandra Jichkar vs. State of <\/p>\n
    Maharashtra),<\/a> is relied upon to buttress this contention. Therefore order <\/p>\n
    of   Hon’ble     Chief   Justice   dated   30\/10\/2007  accepting   it  to   be  PIL   is <\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                        16<\/span><\/p>\n
    urged   to   be   void.   (1992)1   SCC   534-(para   19)-  AIR   1992   SC   1555-\n<\/p>\n
    (Shrisht Dhawan (Smt) v. Shaw Bros.),<\/a>  is cited for this. (1993) 2 SCC <\/p>\n
    507 (para 18)-  (Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka v. Jasjit Singh),<\/a>    is pointed <\/p>\n
    out to show concept of  coram non judis  and   (2008) 7 SCC 738 (para <\/p>\n
    23)- (M.V. Janardhan Reddy v. Vijaya Bank), to  urge it does not create <\/p>\n
    any right or obligation.\n<\/p>\n
    (B).\n<\/p>\n
                 Shri   De, learned counsel  states that Petitioners, only 15 in <\/p>\n
    number, can not maintain such petition which is  in self interest  only.\n<\/p>\n
    There pleadings are vague and  there is no full dis-closer. Fate of police <\/p>\n
    complaint filed by them is not pleaded and  its copy also is not annexed.\n<\/p>\n
    Personal data of each petitioner, necessary to understand their position <\/p>\n
    in life and  society is not pleaded. With the result   their credentials  or <\/p>\n
    bonafides  are  not available   and   Hon’ble   The Chief  Justice  has not <\/p>\n
    looked into it at all. According to him to understand their grievance, a <\/p>\n
    proper map showing location of their houses, of Hostel\/College, distance <\/p>\n
    separating them was essential to enable a legal decision about treating <\/p>\n
    their   grievance   as   PIL.   All   petitioners   are   claimed   to   be   affluent   and <\/p>\n
    educated citizens well placed in life and  hence, PIL is not a remedy for <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                      17<\/span><\/p>\n
    them. It is also pointed out that students of respondent no.5 had earlier <\/p>\n
    lodged   police   complaint   against   highhanded   acts   of   these   petitioners <\/p>\n
    and  thereafter, they have started making grievance only to counter said <\/p>\n
    complaint. He contends that there are 2 other Colleges in the vicinity <\/p>\n
    and they have come up even without non-agricultural permission. Still, <\/p>\n
    petitioners have not made any grievance. Petitioners are  acting at the <\/p>\n
    instance of these other institutes and  not bonafide or in public interest.\n<\/p>\n
    (C) <\/p>\n
                 It   is   urged   that   the   other   residents   have   never   made   any <\/p>\n
    complaints and   houses or structures of Petitioners are in violation of <\/p>\n
    Municipal Rules. The petitioners have purchased their respective plots <\/p>\n
    long after the constructions of respondent no.5 were over and they,also, <\/p>\n
    have not made any grievance about the other buildings in their letter.\n<\/p>\n
    Representation to Collector or then letter by him to CEO, Zilla Parishad <\/p>\n
    or to SDO show complaint about only Hostel building i.e., one structure <\/p>\n
    and     no   grievance   about   other   structures.   All   these   factors   show <\/p>\n
    acquiescence on their part.\n<\/p>\n
    (D).         Attention is invited to photograph of college building to urge <\/p>\n
    that   its   construction   was   already   over   with   other   buildings   and     no <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                        18<\/span><\/p>\n
    complaint about the same was made at any time. This Court has not <\/p>\n
    taken   cognizance   of   these   other   buildings   in   PIL   and  subsequent <\/p>\n
    addition of said grievance to PIL is not legally possible.  PIL is filed on <\/p>\n
    15\/10\/2007   and     amendment   about   other   buildings   has   come   on <\/p>\n
    9\/6\/2008   which   is   not   earlier   cleared   by   either   Hon’ble     The   Chief <\/p>\n
    Justice or Senior Judge as PIL. Hence, such amendment can not relate <\/p>\n
    back to the date of such sanction or clearance. According to him, this is <\/p>\n
    nothing but back-door entry of other matter into PIL.\n<\/p>\n
    (E).          The respondent no.5 is providing free education and   hostel <\/p>\n
    facility to   students from backward\/weaker strata of society   and   its <\/p>\n
    work   is   more   important   to   public   than   the   grievance   expressed   by <\/p>\n
    Petitioners.   List   of   such   66   students   is   pointed   out.   Attention   is   also <\/p>\n
    invited to list of other cities where Hostels are permitted in residential <\/p>\n
    areas. It is urged that population of village Nalwadi is only 8052. The <\/p>\n
    injury complained of is therefore urged to be not legal.\n<\/p>\n
    (F).          In   these   circumstances,   Shri   De,   learned   counsel   contends <\/p>\n
    that as disputed questions of facts arise the petitioners ought to have <\/p>\n
    taken recourse to alternate remedies under the 1958 Act or then to Civil <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                       19<\/span><\/p>\n
    Court and instant PIL at their behest is not sustainable. Had respondent <\/p>\n
    no.5 received due opportunity before taking cognizance of the matter as <\/p>\n
    PIL, all these relevant facets could have been scrutinized before treating <\/p>\n
    it   as   PIL.   Learned   Counsel   states   that   respondent   no.5   has   raised   all <\/p>\n
    structures after due sanctions and   clearances. Hearing it would have <\/p>\n
    resulted   in   invoking   correct   jurisdiction   by   the   petitioners   saving <\/p>\n
    harassment   of   respondent   no.5   and     others.   It   is   pointed   out   that <\/p>\n
    concerned   Registrar   at   Bombay   had   pointed   out   two   alternatives <\/p>\n
    available and  hence, before Hon’ble  The Chief Justice decided to accept <\/p>\n
    one   out   of   them,  opportunity   of   hearing  needed   to   be   extended   to <\/p>\n
    petitioners. The verification of  bonafides or credentials of petitioners is <\/p>\n
    must at the thresh-hold  only. (1993) 4 SCC 10-(para 9)-AIR 1993 SC <\/p>\n
    2155-(Rattan  Lal  Sharma v. Managing  Committee, Dr Hari Ram (Co-\n<\/p>\n
    Education)   Higher   Secondary   School),    is   pressed   into   service.   It   is <\/p>\n
    urged that the Hon’ble   Chief Justice has not recorded any reasons for <\/p>\n
    selecting a particular course or then for treating it as PIL. (2010) 4 SCC <\/p>\n
    785-(para12)  (Assistant   Commissioner,   Commercial   Tax   Department, <\/p>\n
    Works Contract and Leasing v. Shukla and Brothers),    and   (1998) 5 <\/p>\n
    SCC 513 (para 27) AIR 1998 SC 2050-  (State of W.B. v. Shivananda <\/p>\n
    Pathak),<\/a>    are  relied upon  here. A substantive  writ  petition  vide  W.P.\n<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                       20<\/span><\/p>\n
    5933  of  2010   was   filed  in   this   regard   by  it  and     was   allowed   to   be <\/p>\n
    withdrawn on 16\/12\/2010 with liberty to respondent no.5 to raise all <\/p>\n
    contentions   in   defense   in   this   petition.   Already,   on   13\/12\/2010 <\/p>\n
    appropriate submissions were filed in writ petition raising the same.\n<\/p>\n
    (G).         To   demonstrate   the   situation   in   which   and     nature   of <\/p>\n
    grievance that can be looked into as PIL, he relies upon (2005)3 SCC 91<\/p>\n
    —(R   and     M   Trust   vs.   Koramangla   Residents   Vigilance   Group)–AIR<\/a> <\/p>\n
    2005 Sc 894 (para 23 to 37), AIR 2006 SC 2643–(Kushum Lata vs. <\/p>\n
    Union Of India)-<\/a>(para   13), (2008) 3 SCC 542–AIR 2008 SC 1614–\n<\/p>\n
    (Divine   Retreat   Centre   vs.   State   of   Kerla   and     Others)-(para <\/p>\n
    57,59,61,63,64).\n<\/p>\n
    (H).         Respondent no.  5 commenced the construction in 2000 and <\/p>\n
    the  College  existed  prior   to Petitioners  erecting  their  houses. Though <\/p>\n
    sanction  uses   the  word  “house”,  map   itself   employs   the   words  like   –\n<\/p>\n
    retiring   room,   class   room,library   etc.   Hence,   initial   sanction   was   to <\/p>\n
    College   only.   It   is   urged   that   restriction   on   height   i.e.,to   have   G+2 <\/p>\n
    stories came later. Request to add one more floor was duly made on <\/p>\n
    1\/4\/2002 and  it was granted on 6\/4\/2002. Petitioners purchased their <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                   21<\/span><\/p>\n
    plots long after this and   their houses are at sufficiently long distance.\n<\/p>\n
    He reiterated that police complaint by one student against one of the <\/p>\n
    Petitioners has started this dispute. (2010)11 SCC 557–(para 48 to 53)–\n<\/p>\n
    Manohar   Lal   vs.   Ugrasen   and     Ghaziabad   Development   Authority   vs. <\/p>\n
    Ugrasen), as also 2010 (1) SCALE 492 (para 196 to 198)=(2010) 3 SCC <\/p>\n
    402- (State of Uttarnchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal)<\/a>  are pressed into <\/p>\n
    service in this connection.\n<\/p>\n
    (I).\n<\/p>\n
                Our   attention   is   drawn   to   pursis\/submissions   dated <\/p>\n
    13\/12\/2010 and documents placed with it  to urge that all 6 buildings <\/p>\n
    are having valid sanctions and title vests in respondent no.5. It is further <\/p>\n
    urged that present respondent no.5 was not given any previous notice by <\/p>\n
    any authorities before undertaking the inspection and  their reports are <\/p>\n
    not binding  on it. He contends that Petitioners are themselves not very <\/p>\n
    clear about the legal provisions applicable to constructions in dispute.\n<\/p>\n
    Petitioners in letter rely upon Municipal Rules while High Court order <\/p>\n
    dated 12\/1\/2011 calls for information in the light of Extension Rules.\n<\/p>\n
    According to Gram Panchayat, it is Section 52 of the 1958 Act which is <\/p>\n
    relevant. Relying upon Section 45 of the 1958 Act, he points out entry <\/p>\n
    44 in Schedule-I and then Rule making power contained in Section  176 <\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                       22<\/span><\/p>\n
    thereof  to urge that Extension Rules   can not apply and   Respondents <\/p>\n
    have   not   violated   its   Rule   7.   In   the   alternative,   it   is   urged   that <\/p>\n
    Petitioners have also  violated said Rule 7  and  support is being taken <\/p>\n
    from  chart prepared and   produced by respondent no.5 for this.    He <\/p>\n
    further relies upon assertion of  Zilla Parishad that Municipal Rules are <\/p>\n
    not   applicable   and   that   is   correct   as   per   communication   dated <\/p>\n
    14\/10\/1994. Government has not given any reply about interpretation <\/p>\n
    of   this   communication   and   Petitioners   have   not   filed   any   rejoinder <\/p>\n
    disputing this stance of Zilla Parishad. It is stated that Section 176 and <\/p>\n
    177  envisage  rule  or  bye-law making   only  after  previous   publication.\n<\/p>\n
    Section   323   of   the   1965   Act   is   read   out   to   urge   that     alleged <\/p>\n
    Standardized   Building  Bye-laws   are   only   guide   lines  which   even <\/p>\n
    concerned   Municipal   Council   is   required   to   adopt   and   in   absence   of <\/p>\n
    order U\/Section   323(3), it has no statutory force. Without prejudice, <\/p>\n
    bye-laws 2.11,2.21,2.29 are read out to urge that Hostel is covered by <\/p>\n
    Cl. 2.29. Bye-law 20 and   then Appendix-G is used to show that in C <\/p>\n
    class   municipal   area,  educational   institutes   are   allowed   in   residential <\/p>\n
    zone  also.  Order   dated   12\/10\/2007  passed   by   SDO   permitted   non-\n<\/p>\n
    agricultural use for educational purpose and it has been given after due <\/p>\n
    publicity   and   calling   of   objections.  Permission  given  by  Collector   on <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                       23<\/span><\/p>\n
    9\/8\/2005 to sale to respondent no.5 survey no. 63\/1 area 1.87 H to one <\/p>\n
    Siddartha   Doifode   for   educational   purpose   is   also   relied   upon.     It   is <\/p>\n
    urged that all building plans were prepared by competent architect and <\/p>\n
    sanctioned u\/S 52 of 1958 Act by the Gram Panchayat. Reply filed by <\/p>\n
    respondent no.4 Gram Panchayat is relied upon to substantiate this plea.\n<\/p>\n
    View of this Court in 2009(2) Mah.L.J. 714–(Shirdi Nagar Panchayat <\/p>\n
    vs. Gordia  Budget Hotel)  (learned Single  Judge–para  2,7 and   8) is <\/p>\n
    banked upon to show validity of such permission u\/Section  52.\n<\/p>\n
    (J).         Section 142 of the 1958 Act and   it’s scope as explained by <\/p>\n
    Full   Bench   of   this   Court   in   2004(2)   Mah.L.J.   874-para   44   –   (Sanjay <\/p>\n
    Govind Sapkal vs. Collector of Dhule) and<\/a>  2009(5) Mah.L.J. 711-para 9<\/p>\n
    –(Sandip Diwakar Joshi vs. Corporation of City of Nagpur), construing <\/p>\n
    it as alternate remedy are heavily relied upon for seeking dismissal of <\/p>\n
    PIL  on that account. It is contended that Petitioners never approached <\/p>\n
    Zilla Parishad and  impleaded  it later before this Court after matter was <\/p>\n
    treated as PIL . Any omission or inaction on part of Zilla Parishad can <\/p>\n
    not constitute a cause to sustain a PIL.\n<\/p>\n
    (K).         Order   VII   Rule   7   of   Code   of   Civil   Procedure  is   also   relied <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                      24<\/span><\/p>\n
    upon to argue that relief needs to be specific and it can not be vague in <\/p>\n
    such   cases.   The   letter   even   after   amendment   speaks   of   only   Hostel <\/p>\n
    building on plot nos. 12 to 17 and the details like area of construction or <\/p>\n
    plot or extent of alleged unauthorized construction are given.\n<\/p>\n
    6.           Shri   Kilor,   learned   Counsel     has   first   addressed   us   on <\/p>\n
    question  of  maintainability  and later  replied to  defense  arguments of <\/p>\n
    respondent nos. 4, 5 and  6.\n<\/p>\n
    (A).         He points out that the Hon’ble  The Chief Justice is  Head of <\/p>\n
    State Judiciary and  of Nagpur Bench also. Hence, exercise of power to <\/p>\n
    treat letter as PIL by Hon’ble   Chief Justice is not vitiated at all. It is <\/p>\n
    pointed out that Hon’ble  Chief Justice could have transferred the case <\/p>\n
    from Nagpur to Mumbai and vice-versa. (2010)10 SCC 320–(State of <\/p>\n
    Uttar Pradesh vs. Neeraj Chaube and  Others) (para 9-10), (2000)2 SCC <\/p>\n
    391–(R. Rathinam vs. State by DSP, District Crime Branch) (para 9-10) <\/p>\n
    and     (1998)   1   SCC   1–(State   of   Rajasthan   vs.   Prakash   Chand   and <\/p>\n
    Others)<\/a>  (para 10 and   59) are cited to explain the scope of powers of <\/p>\n
    Hon’ble     Chief   Justice.   It   is   urged   that   there   is   difference   between <\/p>\n
    “treating” a letter as PIL and  in “entertaining” it as PIL. Once the matter <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                      25<\/span><\/p>\n
    is  registered as  PIL, Division  Bench  hearing  it on  judicial  side  has to <\/p>\n
    decide it as PIL.\n<\/p>\n
    (B).         As by taking cognizance as PIL, no civil consequences ensue, <\/p>\n
    hearing at that stage is not necessary  at all. It offers an opportunity to <\/p>\n
    correct and  Zilla Parishad as also other authorities could have verified <\/p>\n
    facts and  initiated suitable action. It is not adversarial but a avenue for <\/p>\n
    participative   justice.   He   relies   upon   (2010)   3   SCC     402,   para   36-37 <\/p>\n
    (supra). (2009) 15 SCC 351 (para 33) (A. Abdul Farook vs. Municipal <\/p>\n
    Council, Perambalur) is relied upon to urge that therefore strict rules of <\/p>\n
    pleading do not apply.\n<\/p>\n
    (C).         It is contended that material on record clearly demonstrates <\/p>\n
    collusion  between   Gram   Panchayat   and     respondent   no.5   because   of <\/p>\n
    later’s political influence.  Stand taken by respondent nos. 4 and   6 is <\/p>\n
    contrary to law and  to favour respondent no.5. Contents of paragraph <\/p>\n
    5E of writ letter and  affidavit filed on 22\/6\/2011, para 4\/5 are pressed <\/p>\n
    into service. Attention is invited to resolution of Gram Panchayat dated <\/p>\n
    27\/6\/2007 to show how casually sanction is given to construct on plot <\/p>\n
    nos. 12 to 17. New 5 buildings therefore could come up inspite of the <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                      26<\/span><\/p>\n
    cognizance by this Court. (2003)4 SCC 1–(para 4,9,10)–(Mohd. Aslam <\/p>\n
    vs.   Union   of   India)<\/a>  is   relied   upon   to   urge   that  technical   or   narrow <\/p>\n
    approach in such matters  is not permissible. Availability of PIL in such <\/p>\n
    matters is sought to be supported from observations of Hon’ble   Apex <\/p>\n
    Court in para 55,74 and  75 in AIR 2010 SC 1030–(Priyanaka Estates <\/p>\n
    International Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Assam). (2004) 8 SCC 733– (Friends <\/p>\n
    Colony   Development   Committee   vs.   State   of   Orissa)<\/a>  (para <\/p>\n
    20,22,25,26,28-7) is also relied upon to show how Hon’ble  Apex Court <\/p>\n
    has  approached   the   rampant   problem   of   unauthorized   illegal <\/p>\n
    constructions  in   Cuttack   city.   Reply   affidavits   of   SDO   and   deliberate <\/p>\n
    erroneous interpretation of communication dated 14\/10\/1994 by Zilla <\/p>\n
    Parishad is pointed out to urge that Section  142 of the 1958 Act  is not <\/p>\n
    at all an adequate or efficacious remedy here. Change in stand of Zilla <\/p>\n
    Parishad is also commented upon to support this argument.   Pleading <\/p>\n
    that these authorities had earlier refused\/neglected to act in letter (PIL) <\/p>\n
    is also relied on.\n<\/p>\n
    (D).         It   is   pointed   out   that   the   respondent   no.5   also   has   on <\/p>\n
    affidavits consistently accepted the application of Municipal Rules to the <\/p>\n
    structures raised by it and  then, altered it suddenly to Section 52 of the <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                      27<\/span><\/p>\n
    1958 Act. It is further urged that the construction was going on during <\/p>\n
    pendency of petition, and contrary to its own affidavits, the Municipal <\/p>\n
    Rules are also breached by raising excess construction i.e., in excess of <\/p>\n
    FSI   and   in   marginal   space.   Paragraph  4   of   affidavit   of   Petitioner   15 <\/p>\n
    dated 10\/8\/2009 is urged to be asserting this position only and effort is <\/p>\n
    made to show that it contains an apparent typographical error. He states <\/p>\n
    that Petitioners engaged his services in February, 2008 and  after receipt <\/p>\n
    of all replies appropriate amendment was sought. The amendment is on <\/p>\n
    same lines and  does not alter the nature of writ petition but advances <\/p>\n
    the   same   public   cause.   He   argues   that   till   2007,   only   college   was <\/p>\n
    complete and   construction  of hostel  was  going  on. Thereafter, other <\/p>\n
    constructions  have  also come up. Affidavits  of respondent  no.4  Gram <\/p>\n
    Panchayat filed on 2\/2\/2011 and  filed on 4\/3\/2011 are relied upon to <\/p>\n
    show that location of these constructions beyond “gaothan” i.e., village <\/p>\n
    area is accepted. Resolution  of Gram Panchayat dated 22\/10\/1999 is <\/p>\n
    pointed out to show that Gram Panchayat did not even consider FSI or <\/p>\n
    marginal space. Hence,  Section  52 of 1958 Act can not apply. AIR 2006 <\/p>\n
    S.C.   1325   (M.   C.   Mehta   v.   Union   of   India),<\/a>  is   relied   to   show   how <\/p>\n
    Hon’ble  Apex Court has dealt with  such problem. In AIR 1950 S.C. 27 <\/p>\n
    (A.   K.   Gopalan   v.   State   of   Madras),<\/a>   manner   of   achieving   balance <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                     28<\/span><\/p>\n
    between rights of individual and   society is pointed out. Air 2004 SC <\/p>\n
    2615   (paras   33,35   and     26)-   (Indian   Banks’   Assocn.   v.   Devkala <\/p>\n
    Consultancy Service)   and<\/a>   (2006) 5 SCC 28 (para 23,31,32)– (T.N.\n<\/p>\n
    Godavarman  Thirumulpad vs. Union  of India  and   Others)  are  relied <\/p>\n
    upon to establish locus of Petitioners.  In the alternative, it is urged that <\/p>\n
    this Court can even discharge Petitioners and  note blatant illegalities to <\/p>\n
    proceed suo motu. He states that action may be directed against alleged <\/p>\n
    illegalities in structures of Petitioners also. Total population of Nalwadi <\/p>\n
    is 8052  to show that Nalwadi is not even  worth a “C” class municipal <\/p>\n
    council and  respondent no.5 has used FSI  4 times more than the legally <\/p>\n
    available. After the orders of this Court dated 1\/12\/2010, the grounds <\/p>\n
    about college and  other structures and  malafides were added.\n<\/p>\n
    7.           Shri    De, learned Counsel,   in rejoinder has reiterated that <\/p>\n
    law of pleadings and   burden of proof also applies to PIL and   present <\/p>\n
    petitioners have failed to meet it. He relies upon judgment of Hon’ble <\/p>\n
    Apex Court in case of  Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. State of Madhya <\/p>\n
    Pradesh   and    Another   reported   at  2011(5)  SCALE   624,   for   this <\/p>\n
    proposition.   He   points   out   the   respondent   no.5  is   not   estopped   from <\/p>\n
    pointing  out correct legal provisions  applicable  to their  constructions.\n<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                       29<\/span><\/p>\n
    Here   neither   Zilla   Parishad   nor   State   Government   have   acted   under <\/p>\n
    Section   176 of the 1958 Act to frame any Rules in that regard. The <\/p>\n
    argument   of   Petitioners   requesting   this   Court   to   act   suo   motu   or   of <\/p>\n
    action against their structures is stated to be to save lost face, and by <\/p>\n
    way of after-thought and  malafide one.\n<\/p>\n
    8.           Here   We   find   it   necessary   to   narrate   the   contents   of   the <\/p>\n
    communication dated 8\/10\/207 sent by Petitioners and  treated as PIL <\/p>\n
    by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
    (A).         Perusal   of   letter   dated   8\/10\/2007   reveals   that   it   is   in   the <\/p>\n
    from of application. Applicants therein are described as “Citizens of Shri <\/p>\n
    Swami   Samartha   Nagari,   through   its   Shri   Swami     Samartha   Anyay <\/p>\n
    Niwaran Samiti, Nalwadi, Tq. and   Dist. Wardha and   then 15 names <\/p>\n
    appear.   5   Non-applicants     shown   in   the   letter   are   Tahsildar, <\/p>\n
    Collector,Sub-Divisional   Officer,   Gram   Panchayat-Nalwadi   and   Mahila <\/p>\n
    Vikas Sanstha i.e., present respondent no.5. Thereafter it is urged that <\/p>\n
    the application  may kindly be treated as public interest litigation. Below <\/p>\n
    it object  stated is to take the action against non-applicants nos. 1 to 4 <\/p>\n
    for   failure   in   discharging   their   official   duties   and     for   appropriate <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                      30<\/span><\/p>\n
    direction   to   non-applicant   no.   5   not   to   use   residential   plots   for <\/p>\n
    commercial purpose.  They have pleaded that they have purchased and <\/p>\n
    constructed on plots in field survey no. 56\/1, Mouza Nalwadi. They have <\/p>\n
    annexed   the   order   of   SDO   dated   12\/2\/1989   by   which   said   survey <\/p>\n
    number was converted to residential purpose. Entire survey number is <\/p>\n
    only   for   residential   use.   Then   bye-law   no.   20.1   and     Appendix   G   of <\/p>\n
    Municipal Rules is pointed out and   entire lay out is claimed to come <\/p>\n
    under   residential   zone   R-1.   It   is   pleaded   that   commercial   purpose   is <\/p>\n
    strictly   prohibited.   Communication   dated   14\/10\/1994   of   Urban <\/p>\n
    Development   Department also figures in it.\n<\/p>\n
    (B).         Respondent no.5 is stated to be  association of rich powerful <\/p>\n
    and   politically  influential persons  who  have  started a College in  the <\/p>\n
    vicinity. Hostels for boys and  girls are also stated to be constructed  in <\/p>\n
    residential area by violating rules and  provisions. It is also claimed that <\/p>\n
    respondent no.5 has thus violated law and   because of money, power <\/p>\n
    and political influence, respondent nos. 1 to 4 bound to execute law are <\/p>\n
    utterly   negligent.   Grant   of   permission   by   respondent   no.4   to   G+2 <\/p>\n
    structures is urged to be illegal. Then current   development is pointed <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                      31<\/span><\/p>\n
    out by pleading that respondent no.5 is constructing a ladies hostel on <\/p>\n
    plot   nos.   12   to   17   in   residential   layout   on   survey   no.   56\/1   and <\/p>\n
    respondent   no.4   has   by   going   beyond   law     and     overlooking <\/p>\n
    permissible user and  also for G+3 storied building. They have  alleged <\/p>\n
    that application was moved on 2\/1\/2007 and permission was granted <\/p>\n
    on   11\/7\/2007.       Then   they   have   pointed     out   how   construction   of <\/p>\n
    college   and   hostel,   the   increased   traffic     has   created   nuisance   and <\/p>\n
    caused mental, financial and  physical loss to them. Narrow layout roads <\/p>\n
    and     rash   driving   by   students,   vulgar   comments   and     harassment   to <\/p>\n
    families   is   also   disclosed.   They   have   then   pointed   out   representation <\/p>\n
    made  by them  in  writing  and   orally to Respondent nos. 2 to 4. On <\/p>\n
    democracy-day,   representation   was   made   to   respondent   no.2.   On <\/p>\n
    29\/8\/2007   complaint   was   given   to   respondent   no.3.   None   of   the <\/p>\n
    Respondents paid any heed to it. After this complaint, work is still stated <\/p>\n
    to   be   on,   use   of   some   gunda   element   by   respondent   no.5   and <\/p>\n
    implication   of   citizens   in   false   criminal   cases.   Absence   of   proper <\/p>\n
    drainage system, water seepage in walls, tube wells and  diseases. Public <\/p>\n
    nuisance is pointed out with failure on part of Respondent nos. 2 to 4 to <\/p>\n
    control it. Prayer is to take action against these Respondents for their <\/p>\n
    negligence. Direction is also sought to stop and  remove the construction <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                         32<\/span><\/p>\n
    on plot 12 to 17. Other appropriate relief against Respondent nos. 2 to 5 <\/p>\n
    is also claimed.\n<\/p>\n
    (C).          On 9\/6\/2008, this letter or application has been amended. In <\/p>\n
    amended part they have pointed out that after their  complaint dated <\/p>\n
    28\/9\/2007,   respondent   no.1   and     3   conducted   inquiry   and     found <\/p>\n
    permission given by respondent no.4 bad. These authorities accordingly <\/p>\n
    informed respondent no.6 Zilla Parishad.   But   Zilla Parishad failed to <\/p>\n
    exercise its powers. It is alleged that the college building is also illegal as <\/p>\n
    it is in residential zone. All plans submitted  to  Gram Panchayat were of <\/p>\n
    plots for residential purpose and commercial structures have  come up.\n<\/p>\n
    For College, actually map of house was submitted and Gram Panchayat <\/p>\n
    is hand in glove with the respondent no.5. The structures are alleged to <\/p>\n
    be in violation of Municipal Rules and  Extension Rules. As respondent <\/p>\n
    no.6 Zilla Parishad did nothing, request for detail inquiry and proper <\/p>\n
    action against the authorities and   officers is asked.   Inquiry is prayed <\/p>\n
    into illegal construction and  illegal permissions by respondent no.4 and <\/p>\n
    in   failure   on   part   of   respondent   no.6   to   act.     Removal   of   all   illegal <\/p>\n
    constructions with punishment for all officers\/authorities found guilty is <\/p>\n
    therefore requested by him.\n<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                       33<\/span><\/p>\n
    9.          It is  first necessary to note how illegal and   un-authorized <\/p>\n
    development is viewed by the Hon’ble  Apex Court.\n<\/p>\n
    (A).        Judgment of Hon’ble   Apex Court in  AIR  2010 SC 1030–\n<\/p>\n
    (Priyanaka  Estates   International   Pvt.   Ltd.   vs.   State   of   Assam.), <\/p>\n
    particularly   in   para   55,74   and     75   are   important   here.   Following <\/p>\n
    observations show that interest of society or public at large is prejudiced <\/p>\n
    because of unauthorized constructions.\n<\/p>\n
              “74.   Even   though   on   earlier   occasions   also,   under
\n              similar circumstances, there have been judgments of this <\/p>\n
              Court   which   should   have   been   a   pointer   to   all   the  <\/p>\n
              builders   that   raising   unauthorized   construction  never
\n              pays and is against the interest of society at large, but,
\n              no   heed   to   it   has   been   given   by   the   builders.   Rules, <\/p>\n
              Regulations and Bye-laws are made by Corporation or
\n              by Development Authorities,  taking in view the larger
\n              public interest of the society and it is a bounden duty of  <\/p>\n
              the  citizens  to obey   and   follow  such  Rules  which  are
\n              made for their benefit. If unauthorized constructions are
\n              allowed to stand or given a seal of approval by court
\n              then   it   is   bound   to   affect   the   public   at   large.   An  <\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                34<\/span><\/p>\n
      individual has a right, including a fundamental right,  <\/p>\n
      within a reasonable limit, it inroads the public rights
\n      leading   to   public   inconvenience,   therefore,   it   is   to   be <\/p>\n
      curtailed to that extent.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      75. The jurisdiction and power of courts to indemnify a <\/p>\n
      citizen for injuries suffered due to such unauthorized or
\n      illegal   construction   having   been   erected   by
\n      builder\/colonizer   is   required   to   be   compensated   by  <\/p>\n
      them.  An ordinary citizen or a common man is hardly  <\/p>\n
      equipped to match the might and power of the builders.\n<\/p>\n
      76.   In   the   case   in   hand,   it   is   noted   that   number   of
\n      occupiers were put in possession of the respective flats by
\n      the   builder\/developer   constructed   unauthorizedly   in  <\/p>\n
      violation of the laws. Thus, looking to the matter from  <\/p>\n
      all angles it cannot be disputed that ultimately the flat
\n      owners are going to be the greater sufferers rather than
\n      builder who has already pocketed the price of the flat.\n<\/p>\n
      77. It is a sound policy to punish the wrong-doer and it
\n      is in that spirit that the courts have moulded the reliefs  <\/p>\n
      of granting compensation to the victims in exercise of
\n      the powers conferred on it.  In doing so, the courts are
\n      required to take into account not only the interest of the
\n      petitioners and the respondents but also the interest of
\n      public   as   a   whole   with   a   view   that   public   bodies   or  <\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                      35<\/span><\/p>\n
               officials   or   builders   do   not   act   unlawfully   and   do  <\/p>\n
               perform their duties properly.”\n<\/p>\n
    (B).         In     AIR 2005 S.C. 1-(2004) 8 SCC 733     (Friends Colony <\/p>\n
    Development Committee  vs. State  of  Orissa)<\/a>  (para  20,22,25,26,28-7), <\/p>\n
    Hon’ble   Apex Court has considered S.91, S.92 of Orissa Development <\/p>\n
    Authorities   Act   (14   of   1982),   and     Regn.   1   Cuttack   Development <\/p>\n
    Authority  (Planning   and   Building  Standard)   Regulations   (2001).   It  is <\/p>\n
    found  that   construction  activity   in   city   of  Cuttack   presented  a   sordid <\/p>\n
    state of affairs and   stringent actions by ruthlessly demolishing illegal <\/p>\n
    constructions   and   non-compoundable   deviations   therefore   necessary.\n<\/p>\n
    Unwary   purchasers   of   such   buildings   are   held   entitled   to   be <\/p>\n
    compensated and  responsibility was fixed on officials whose duty it was <\/p>\n
    to prevent unauthorized constructions.                 Regularization of deviations <\/p>\n
    is held permissible only in case of bonafide deviations and  directed to <\/p>\n
    be dealt with by multi-membered High Power Committee. Heavy penalty <\/p>\n
    to   be   imposed   on   erring   professional   builders,   Fund   to   compensate <\/p>\n
    unwary purchasers to be built up therefrom. In paragraph 28(7), the <\/p>\n
    Hon’ble     Apex   Court   observes   that   if   High   Court   feels   that   illegal\/ <\/p>\n
    unauthorized   building   activities   in   Cuttack   are   so   rampant   as   to   be <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                      36<\/span><\/p>\n
    noticed judicially, it may suo motu register a public interest litigation <\/p>\n
    and commence monitoring the same by issuing directions so as to curb <\/p>\n
    such tendency and fixing liability and accountability.\n<\/p>\n
    (C).         In  Mohd. Aslam v. Union of India<\/a>  reported at (2003) 4 SCC <\/p>\n
    1),  the   Hon’ble     Apex  Court     has   considered  the  technical  objections <\/p>\n
    raised in  situation when it  has treated letters, telegrams or postcards or <\/p>\n
    news   reports   as   writ   petitions.   In   such   petitions,   on   the   basis   of <\/p>\n
    pleadings that emerge in the case after notice to different parties, relief <\/p>\n
    can be given or refused. Therefore,  Court should not approach matters <\/p>\n
    where   public  interest  is   involved  in   a  technical   or   a   narrow  manner.\n<\/p>\n
    Particularly, when   Court has entertained the petition, issued notice to <\/p>\n
    different   parties,   new   parties   have   been   impleaded,   it   would   not   be <\/p>\n
    appropriate for the Court to dispose of the petition on such grounds. In <\/p>\n
    proceeding   before   Hon’ble     Apex   Court   initiated   as   a   public   interest <\/p>\n
    petition,   several   reliefs   were   claimed   but   after   the   interested   parties <\/p>\n
    were impleaded and their pleadings were put forth, Hon’ble  Apex Court <\/p>\n
    gathered what  crystallized  therefrom as the controversy involved.\n<\/p>\n
    (D).         AIR 2006 S.C. 1325 (M. C. Mehta v. Union of India)<\/a>  shows <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                       37<\/span><\/p>\n
    how the Hon’ble  Apex Court has dealt with  such problems of conflicts.\n<\/p>\n
    In   AIR   1950   S.C.   27   (A.   K.   Gopalan   v.   State   of   Madras),<\/a>   rights   of <\/p>\n
    individual and  society are balanced by expressing that    there cannot be <\/p>\n
    any   such  thing  as  absolute  or  uncontrolled   liberty   wholly  freed   from <\/p>\n
    restraint, for that ‘would lead to anarchy and disorder. The possession <\/p>\n
    and enjoyment of all rights, as was observed by the Supreme Court of <\/p>\n
    America in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11, are subject to such <\/p>\n
    reasonable conditions as may be deemed by the governing authority of <\/p>\n
    the   country   essential   to   the   safety,   health,   peace,   general   order   and <\/p>\n
    morals of the community. “The question, therefore, arises in each case of <\/p>\n
    adjusting the conflicting interests of the individual and of the society. In <\/p>\n
    some   cases,   restrictions   have   to   be   placed   upon   free   exercise   of <\/p>\n
    individual rights to safeguard the interests of the society; on the other <\/p>\n
    hand,   social   control   which   exists   for   public   good   has   got   to   be <\/p>\n
    restrained, lest it should be misused to the detriment of individual rights <\/p>\n
    and liberties.\n<\/p>\n
    10.          Respondent   no.5  has   raised  various   preliminary   objections.\n<\/p>\n
    While considering the same one by one, We point out that reference to it <\/p>\n
    is again being made below after noticing the reports of various public <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                     38<\/span><\/p>\n
    officers on the structures raised by respondent no.5.\n<\/p>\n
    (A).         One out of them is cognizance taken by Hon’ble   The Chief <\/p>\n
    Justice at Bombay. 2003(4) Mah.L.J. 635 (pl.B) (Surendra Ramchandra <\/p>\n
    Jichkar  vs.  State   of  Maharashtra),<\/a>  considers   Chapter   IV  Clause   2A  in <\/p>\n
    Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, then regulating  public <\/p>\n
    interest   litigation     Jurisdiction.   Petition   challenging   the   location   of <\/p>\n
    Country Liquor Shops in residential locality was entertained as public <\/p>\n
    interest litigation and   said powers exercised by learned Single Judge <\/p>\n
    are held de hors and inconsistent with the provisions of clause 2A of <\/p>\n
    Chapter IV of the Rules.   It is further said that in   view of the above <\/p>\n
    referred specific provision, petition involving public interest is required <\/p>\n
    to be heard only by the Division Bench, that too only after obtaining <\/p>\n
    orders, if the matter is at Bombay from the Hon’ble the Chief Justice and <\/p>\n
    if the matter is before the Benches, from the Senior-most Judge available <\/p>\n
    at   the   concerned   Benches.   The   provision   is   found   absolutely <\/p>\n
    unambiguous and clear and gives jurisdiction to entertain public interest <\/p>\n
    litigation only to the Division Bench, that too after obtaining necessary <\/p>\n
    permission as contemplated in clause 2A of Chapter IV of the Rules.\n<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                       39<\/span><\/p>\n
    (B).         In   (1992)1 SCC 534-  AIR 1992 SC 1555  (Shrisht Dhawan <\/p>\n
    (Smt)   v.   Shaw   Bros.),  the   Hon’ble     Apex   Court<\/a>   states   that   error   in <\/p>\n
    assumption of jurisdiction should not be confused with mistake, legal or <\/p>\n
    factual   in   exercise   of   jurisdiction.   In   the   former   the   order   is   void <\/p>\n
    whereas in the latter it is final unless set aside by higher or competent <\/p>\n
    court or authority. An order which is void can be challenged at any time <\/p>\n
    in any proceeding. A permission granted under rent control legislation <\/p>\n
    once   permitted   to   attain   finality   becomes   unassailable   on   error   in <\/p>\n
    exercise of jurisdiction. It could be challenged later or in execution only <\/p>\n
    if it could be brought in the category of a void or ultra vires permission.\n<\/p>\n
    Such invalidity can arise if jurisdiction is exercised by misrepresentation <\/p>\n
    of facts either about existence of vacancy or nature of premises. In other <\/p>\n
    words what attains finality in accordance with law cannot be permitted <\/p>\n
    to   be   re-agitated   or   reopened   except   in   the   larger   social   interest   of <\/p>\n
    preventing   a   person   from   practicing   deceit.   Therefore   an   error   of <\/p>\n
    jurisdictional   fact   which   could   entitle   a   Controller   to   re-examine   the <\/p>\n
    matter in the context of relevant provision i.e., Section 21of the Delhi <\/p>\n
    Rent Control Act, 1958   is the same, namely, fraud or collusion. Ratio in <\/p>\n
    Noronah to this extent was reiterated and accepted as correct exposition <\/p>\n
    of law in Shiv Chander Kapoor. It has to be understood as such.\n<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                     40<\/span><\/p>\n
    (C).       Position   of   the   Hon’ble     Chief   Justice   assumes   importance <\/p>\n
    here. Hon’ble  Apex Court in (2010)10 SCC 320  (State of Uttar Pradesh <\/p>\n
    vs. Neeraj Chaube and  Others) (para 9-10) holds that :–\n<\/p>\n
               “9.  The   High   Court   had   taken   note   of   various
\n               judgments   of   this   Court   including   State   of  <\/p>\n
               Maharashtra v. Narayan Shamrao Puranik2, Inder  <\/p>\n
               Mani<\/a> v. Matheshwari Prasad3, State of Rajasthan v.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               Prakash Chand4, R. Rathinam v. State5  and Jasbir <\/p>\n
               Singh v. State of Punjab6  and various judgments of
\n               the High Courts and came to the conclusion that the  <\/p>\n
               Chief Justice is the master of roster. The Chief Justice  <\/p>\n
               has   full   power,   authority   and   jurisdiction   in   the
\n               matter   of   allocation   of   business   of   the   High   Court
\n               which flows not only from the provisions contained in <\/p>\n
               sub-section   (3)   of   Section   51   of   the   States
\n               Reorganization Act, 1956, but inheres in him in the
\n               very   nature   of   things.   The   Chief   Justice   enjoys   a  <\/p>\n
               special status and———- Judge or a Bench of Judges
\n               can assume jurisdiction in a case pending in the High
\n               Court only if the case is allotted to him or them by
\n               the Chief Justice. Strict adherence of this procedure is  <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                      41<\/span><\/p>\n
               essential   for   maintaining   judicial   discipline   and <\/p>\n
               proper functioning of the Court. No departure from
\n               this procedure is permissible.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               10.  In   case   an   application   is   filed   and   the   Bench
\n               comes to the conclusion that it involves some issues  <\/p>\n
               relating   to   public   interest,  the   Bench   may   not
\n               entertain   it   as   a   public   interest   litigation   but   the  <\/p>\n
               court has its option to convert it into a public interest
\n                litigation  and  ask  the Registry  to place it  before
\n                        ig                                               a
\n               Bench which has jurisdiction to entertain the PIL as
\n               per the Rules, guidelines or by the roster fixed by the  <\/p>\n
               Chief Justice but the Bench cannot convert itself into
\n               a PIL and proceed with the matter itself.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    (D).      Same view is expressed in (2000)2 SCC 391   (R. Rathinam <\/p>\n
    vs. State by DSP, District Crime Branch) (para 9-10) and  then in (1998) <\/p>\n
    1 SCC 1 (State of Rajasthan vs. Prakash Chand and   Others)<\/a>  (para 10 <\/p>\n
    and  59). In paragraph 59 of last  judgment Hon’ble  Apex Court has laid <\/p>\n
    down broad conclusions which emerge from various judgments.\n<\/p>\n
    (E).      The   above judgments nowhere support the contention that <\/p>\n
    in High-Courts with benches, powers available to the Hon’ble  the Chief <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                      42<\/span><\/p>\n
    Justice  are  exercisable  only at   principal  seat and not at its  benches.\n<\/p>\n
    More   over,   even   if  Chapter   IV   Clause   2A  of   Bombay   High     Court <\/p>\n
    Appellate Side Rules, 1960 is to be applied, here the Senior Judge or the <\/p>\n
    Administrative Judge at Nagpur Bench was independently approached <\/p>\n
    and, with due application of mind, the Senior Judge decided to call for <\/p>\n
    report of the Collector. Thus, independently cognizance was also taken <\/p>\n
    at Nagpur. The report of the Collector does not disclose any material to <\/p>\n
    even   remotely   suggest   that   cognizance   as   PIL     was     not   warranted.\n<\/p>\n
    Taking cognizance of PIL is mostly an administrative exercise and it is <\/p>\n
    not   necessary   to   hear   the   alleged   wrong   doer   at   that   stage.   Such <\/p>\n
    aggrieved person can always  make suitable  grievance  when  matter  is <\/p>\n
    being   judicially   examined   by   the   regular   bench.   The   law   does   not <\/p>\n
    contemplate   a   hearing   before   taking   cognizance   as   PIL   and   further <\/p>\n
    challenges   to   the   orders   taking   cognizance   of   either     Hon’ble     Chief <\/p>\n
    Justice or the Senior Judge by the aggrieved party. If arguments of  Shri <\/p>\n
    De, learned counsel are to be accepted two hearings i.e., one before the <\/p>\n
    cognizance   and     later   hearing   on   judicial   side   after   such   cognizance <\/p>\n
    become imperative. Such a course of action may lead to uncertainty and <\/p>\n
    delay  thereby militating  with the very basics of concept of PIL. Persons <\/p>\n
    attempting   to   invoke   that   jurisdiction   may   in   such   an   eventuality   be <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                       43<\/span><\/p>\n
    forced to regular civil or other jurisdiction for immediate interim relief <\/p>\n
    appropriate to their grievance. It is clear that all the available grounds <\/p>\n
    for urging that grievance should not be treated as PIL therefore need to <\/p>\n
    be raised as defences or objections during hearing of such PIL by regular <\/p>\n
    bench   on   judicial   side   and   not   by   separate   writ   petition.   The   earlier <\/p>\n
    Division Bench of this Court has rightly disposed of earlier W.P. No.5933 <\/p>\n
    of 2010 filed in this regard by respondent no.5 which was allowed to be <\/p>\n
    withdrawn on 16\/12\/2010 by giving it liberty to raise all such objections <\/p>\n
    as defences in this matter. As such there is no question of opportunity of <\/p>\n
    hearing or then recording of reasons   by the Hon’ble   Chief Justice or <\/p>\n
    Senior Judge at benches and hence, the case law cited for that purpose <\/p>\n
    need not be considered. It also needs to be noted that the Senior Judge <\/p>\n
    at Nagpur in October did call for report of respondent no.2- Collector.\n<\/p>\n
    Said report is dated 6\/14-12-2007 and after its perusal only the notice <\/p>\n
    has been issued to Respondents on 19\/12\/2007. The Senior Judge who <\/p>\n
    did call for that report on administrative side was also a Senior Judge <\/p>\n
    and     party   to   order   dated   19\/12\/2007.   Thus   even   if   any   lacuna   is <\/p>\n
    presumed as cognizance was first taken at Mumbai still the later steps <\/p>\n
    taken at Nagpur sufficiently make amends for it. A court with inherent <\/p>\n
    lack of jurisdiction like Single Judge has not interfered in the matter at <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                      44<\/span><\/p>\n
    all.   Hence,   even   on   this   count     the   objection   is   unsustainable.   The <\/p>\n
    provisions made in High Court Appellate Side Rules to avoid frivolous <\/p>\n
    petitions   have   been   substantially   complied   with   and   the   concept   of <\/p>\n
    “coram non judis” or other related arguments do not need discussion <\/p>\n
    here. Even otherwise, in present facts We are satisfied that respondent <\/p>\n
    no.5 has not suffered any prejudice due to alleged non-hearing or no-\n<\/p>\n
    reasons.\n<\/p>\n
    11.<\/p>\n
                 Other   objection   to   the   tenability   are   due   to   alleged <\/p>\n
    acquiescence   by   Petitioners   and     their   credentials   or   absence   of   its <\/p>\n
    verification.\n<\/p>\n
    (A).         Petitioners are residents of Nalwadi and  their houses are in <\/p>\n
    layout in  survey no. 56\/1. The construction  of hostel  going  on when <\/p>\n
    letter dated 8\/10\/2007 was written by the Petitioners is in same survey <\/p>\n
    number. In (2005)3 SCC 91 (R and  M Trust vs. Koramangla Residents <\/p>\n
    Vigilance Group)<\/a>  –AIR 2005 SC 894 (para 23 to 37), Hon’ble   Apex <\/p>\n
    Court states :–\n<\/p>\n
                 “23.   This sacrosanct jurisdiction of Public Interest <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:34 :::<\/span>
\n                            45<\/span><\/p>\n
      Litigation should be invoked very sparingly and in <\/p>\n
      favour of vigilant litigant and not for the persons
\n      who invoke this jurisdiction for the sake of publicity  <\/p>\n
      or   for   the   purpose   of   serving   their   private   ends.\n<\/p>\n
      Hon’ble   Apex Court has also noted that Prof. S.B.\n<\/p>\n
      Sathe has summarized the extent of the jurisdiction <\/p>\n
      which   has   now   been   exercised   in   the   following
\n      words :\n<\/p>\n
      “PIL may, therefore, be described as satisfying one  <\/p>\n
      or more of the following parameters. These are not  <\/p>\n
      exclusive but merely descriptive :\n<\/p>\n
      Where the concerns underlying a petition are not <\/p>\n
      individualist   but   are   shared   widely   by   a   large
\n      number   of   people   (bonded   labour,   under-trial
\n      prisoners, prison inmates.)<\/p>\n
      Where   the   affected   persons   belong   to   the  <\/p>\n
      disadvantaged sections of society (women, children,
\n      bonded labour, unorganized labour, etc.)
\n      Where   judicial   law   making   is   necessary   to   avoid  <\/p>\n
      exploitation (inter-country adoption, the education
\n      of the children, bonded labour, unorganize labour,
\n      etc.)<\/p>\n
      Where   judicial   law   making   is   necessary   to   avoid
\n      exploitation (inter-country adoption, the education
\n      of the children of the prostitutes).\n<\/p>\n
      Where   judicial   intervention   is   necessary   for   the
\n      protection of the sanctity of democratic institutions  <\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                 46<\/span><\/p>\n
           (independence   of   the   judiciary,   existence   of  <\/p>\n
           grievances redressal forums.)
\n           Where   administrative   decisions   related   to  <\/p>\n
           development are harmful  to the  environment and
\n           jeopardize people’s right to natural resources such
\n           as air or water.”\n<\/p>\n
           25.In this connection reference may be made to a
\n           recent decision given by this Court in the case of
\n           Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra <\/p>\n
           and Ors. (S.L.P. (C) No.26269 of<\/a> 2004) in which  <\/p>\n
           Hon’ble Pasayat J, has also observed as follows :\n<\/p>\n
           “Public Interest Litigation is a weapon which has to <\/p>\n
           be used with great care and circumspection and the
\n           judiciary   has   to   be   extremely   careful   to   see   that
\n           behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly  <\/p>\n
           private   malice   vested   interest   and\/or   publicity  <\/p>\n
           seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective
\n           weapon in the armory of law  for delivering social
\n           justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of  <\/p>\n
           public   interest   litigation   should   not   be   used   for
\n           suspicious products of mischief.  It should be aimed
\n           at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury <\/p>\n
           and not publicity oriented or founded on personal
\n           vendetta.”\n<\/p>\n
    (B).   On delay and  latches, Hon’ble  Apex Court has observed that <\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                          47<\/span><\/p>\n
    delay   is   a   very   important   factor   while   exercising   extraordinary <\/p>\n
    jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Court cannot disturb <\/p>\n
    the third party interest created on account of delay. Hon’ble  Apex Court <\/p>\n
    was   of the opinion that delay in   case before it is equally fatal as the <\/p>\n
    construction was already started by the appellant in 1987 and building <\/p>\n
    had come up to three floors. Thereafter it was stopped in 1988 and in <\/p>\n
    March, 1991 it resumed after permission was granted. The Writ Petition <\/p>\n
    was filed in November, 1991 while in the meanwhile construction was <\/p>\n
    complete. Therefore, delay was held fatal. It was also brought to Hon’ble <\/p>\n
    Court’s notice that 46 multi storey buildings had come up   with more <\/p>\n
    than three and four floors each. What is important is the observation of <\/p>\n
    Hon’ble  Apex Court on this. It reads :-\n<\/p>\n
                  “35.  However,   we   are   satisfied   that   there   is   no
\n                  prohibition under the provisions of the Act and Rules  <\/p>\n
                  putting the ceiling on construction of the multi- storey
\n                  building.  We are  also  satisfied  that  the  delay  is also
\n                   fatal in the present case . ”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    In facts before us, there is no creation of any third party interest and <\/p>\n
    multi storey buildings  with  excess FSI are not sustainable  as  per any <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                        48<\/span><\/p>\n
    legal provisions. This ruling therefore helps the cause of Petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
    (C).             Facts   in   AIR   2006   SC   2643–(Kushum   Lata   vs.   Union   Of <\/p>\n
    India)<\/a>  show   that   the   appellant   styled   the   petition   as   PIL   though   it <\/p>\n
    related to a tender where she herself was a tenderer. In another petition, <\/p>\n
    questioning legality of the auction, she was a party. The High Court was <\/p>\n
    therefore held justified in dismissing the writ petition styled as a PIL.\n<\/p>\n
    Observations   of   Hon’ble     Apex   Court   in   paragraph   13   are   in   this <\/p>\n
    background   and     words   of   caution   and     restraint   in   exercise   of   PIL <\/p>\n
    jurisdiction   are   reiterated.   We   may   also   note   that   in   AIR   2006   S.C.\n<\/p>\n
    1489–   (Bombay   Dyeing   and   Mfg.   Co.   Ltd.   v.   Bombay   Environmental <\/p>\n
    Action Group), Hon’ble  Apex<\/a> notes that public interest litigations  have <\/p>\n
    been entertained more frequently where a question of violation of the <\/p>\n
    provisions of the statutes governing the environmental or ecology of the <\/p>\n
    country   has   been   brought   to   its   notice   in   the   matter   of   depletion   of <\/p>\n
    forest   areas   and\/or   when   the   executive   while   exercising   its <\/p>\n
    administrative   functions   or   making   subordinate   legislation’s   has <\/p>\n
    interfered   with   the   ecological   balance   with   impunity.   Hon’ble     Apex <\/p>\n
    Court in (2008) 3 SCC 542–AIR 2008 SC 1614 (Divine Retreat Centre <\/p>\n
    vs. State of Kerla and  Others) lays down that the document petitioning <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                        49<\/span><\/p>\n
    the Court for relief should be supported by satisfactory verification. It is <\/p>\n
    held to be more so   where petitions are received by the Court through <\/p>\n
    the post. Reason noted by Hon’ble  Court is it is never beyond the bound <\/p>\n
    of   possibility   that   an   unverified   communication   received   through   the <\/p>\n
    post   by   the   Court   may   in   fact   have   been   employed   malafide,   as   an <\/p>\n
    instrument of coercion or blackmail or other oblique motive against a <\/p>\n
    person named therein who holds a position of honour and respect in <\/p>\n
    society. The Hon’ble  Apex  Court states that court must be ever vigilant <\/p>\n
    against the abuse of its process. It cannot do that better in the matter <\/p>\n
    than   insisting   at   the   earliest   stage,   and   before   issuing   notice   to   the <\/p>\n
    respondent,   that   an   appropriate   verification   of   the   allegations   be <\/p>\n
    supplied. The public Interest Litigant must disclose his identity so as to <\/p>\n
    enable   the   Court   to   decide   that   the   informant   is   not   a   wayfarer   or <\/p>\n
    officious intervener without any interest or concern. The Court should <\/p>\n
    be prima facie satisfied that the information laid before it is of such a <\/p>\n
    nature that it calls for examination and this prima facie satisfaction may <\/p>\n
    be derived from the credentials of the informant, namely, what is the <\/p>\n
    character   or   standing   of   the   informant   or   from   the   nature   of   the <\/p>\n
    information given by him, namely, whether it is vague and indefinite or <\/p>\n
    contains specific allegations as a result of survey or investigation or from <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                      50<\/span><\/p>\n
    the gravity or seriousness of the complaint set out in the information or <\/p>\n
    from   any   other   circumstance   or   circumstances   appearing   from   the <\/p>\n
    communication  addressed to the  court or to a Judge  of the  court on <\/p>\n
    behalf of the court. Here in facts before us the letter is not anonymous <\/p>\n
    and identity of Petitioners is not in dispute. The letter contains necessary <\/p>\n
    details which rule out any falsity in its contents. Moreover, the Senior <\/p>\n
    Judge at Nagpur did call for report of Collector and after its perusal the <\/p>\n
    notice has been issued to Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
    (D).             In  (2010)11 SCC 557–AIR 2010 S.C. 2210  (Manohar Lal vs. <\/p>\n
    Ugrasen and  Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Ugrasen),  Hon’ble <\/p>\n
    Apex Court finds that the State Government, could not have entertained <\/p>\n
    directly   the   applications   by   Sh.   Ugrasen   and   Sh.   Manohar   Lal.   The <\/p>\n
    action of the State Government is held  arbitrary and abuse of power as <\/p>\n
    the State Government deprived GDA exercise of its power under the Act.\n<\/p>\n
    Hon’ble  Court also noted that none of the parties considered it proper <\/p>\n
    to   place   the   authentic   documents   before   the   Court   to   help   it   to <\/p>\n
    determine real facts.   The Land Policy provided only for allotment of <\/p>\n
    land   in   residential   area.   The   fact   of   illegal   allotment   of   land   in <\/p>\n
    commercial   area   was     brought   to   the   notice   of   the   Apex   Court   vide <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                         51<\/span><\/p>\n
    affidavit   of   the   Vice-Chairman,   GDA   dated   27.5.2010   which   was   not <\/p>\n
    brought   on   record   before   the   High   Court   by   GDA   or   by     the   State <\/p>\n
    Government.  The appellants had also not disclosed that land allotted to <\/p>\n
    them   was   in   commercial   area.   Hon’ble     Supreme   Court   held   that   a <\/p>\n
    person invoking equity in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under <\/p>\n
    Articles 226\/227 of the Constitution, he should approach the Court not <\/p>\n
    only with clean hands but also with clean mind, clean heart and clean <\/p>\n
    objective.   Such   a   litigant   is   not   required   to   be   dealt   with   lightly,   as <\/p>\n
    petition   containing   misleading   and   inaccurate   statement,   if   filed,   to <\/p>\n
    achieve   an   ulterior   purpose   amounts   to   abuse   of   the   process   of   the <\/p>\n
    Court. Hon’ble   Apex Court found it   a fit case for ordering enquiry or <\/p>\n
    initiating proceedings for committing criminal contempt of the Court as <\/p>\n
    the parties succeeded in misleading the Court by not disclosing the true <\/p>\n
    facts. It further ob served that:–  “However, we are not inclined to waste  <\/p>\n
    court’s time further in these cases. Our experience has been that the so-called  <\/p>\n
    administration is not likely to wake-up from its deep slumber and is never  <\/p>\n
    interested to redeem the limping society from such hapless situations. We  <\/p>\n
    further apprehend that our pious hope that administration may muster the  <\/p>\n
    courage one day to initiate disciplinary\/criminal proceedings against such  <\/p>\n
    applicants\/erring officers\/ employees of the authority, may not come true.\n<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                          52<\/span><\/p>\n
    However, we leave the course open for the State Government and GDA to  <\/p>\n
    take decision in regard to these issues and as to whether GDA wants to  <\/p>\n
    recover the possession of  the land already  allotted  to these applicants in  <\/p>\n
    commercial area contrary to the Land Policy or value thereof adjusting the  <\/p>\n
    amount of compensation deposited by them, if any.”\n<\/p>\n
    12.              Though   several   judgments   have   been   cited,   We   find   it <\/p>\n
    necessary to mention  AIR 2010 S.C. 2050 =(2010) 3 SCC  402- (State <\/p>\n
     of Uttarnchal vs. Balwant Singh  Chaufal)<\/a>
\n                                              , where Hon’ble   Apex Court <\/p>\n
    has laid down  certain norms and  important out of it are :–\n<\/p>\n
                   “(3)   The   courts   should   prima   facie   verify   the
\n                   credentials   of   the   petitioner   before   entertaining   a
\n                   P.I.L.  (4) The court should be prima facie satisfied  <\/p>\n
                   regarding   the   correctness   of   the   contents   of   the
\n                   petition   before   entertaining   a   PIL.   (5)   The   court
\n                   should   be   fully   satisfied   that   substantial   public <\/p>\n
                   interest  is involved  before  entertaining  the  petition.
\n                   (6) The court should ensure that the petition which
\n                   involves   larger   public   interest,   gravity   and   urgency
\n                   must   be  given   priority   over   other   petitions.(7)   The
\n                   courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that  <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                      53<\/span><\/p>\n
                the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm  <\/p>\n
                or public injury. The court should  also ensure that
\n                there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique <\/p>\n
                motive behind filing the public interest litigation. (8)
\n                The court should also ensure that the petitions filed
\n                by   busybodies   for   extraneous   and   ulterior   motives <\/p>\n
                must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or
\n                by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous
\n                petitions   and   the   petitions   filed   for   extraneous <\/p>\n
                considerations. “<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 While tracing history of PIL in country, Hon’ble  Apex Court <\/p>\n
    noted   that     the   public   interest   litigation   is   an   extremely   important <\/p>\n
    jurisdiction exercised by the Supreme Court and the High Courts. The <\/p>\n
    Courts in a number of cases have given important directions and passed <\/p>\n
    orders which have brought positive changes in the country. The Courts’ <\/p>\n
    directions have immensely benefited marginalized sections of the society <\/p>\n
    in a number of cases. It has also helped in protection and preservation of <\/p>\n
    ecology, environment, forests, marine life, wildlife etc. etc. The court’s <\/p>\n
    directions   to   some   extent   have   helped   in   maintaining   probity   and <\/p>\n
    transparency in the public life. Hon’ble  Apex Court while exercising its <\/p>\n
    jurisdiction of judicial review realized that a very large section of the <\/p>\n
    society   because   of   extreme   poverty,   ignorance,   discrimination   and <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                       54<\/span><\/p>\n
    illiteracy had been denied justice for time immemorial and in fact they <\/p>\n
    have no access to justice. Predominantly, to provide access to justice to <\/p>\n
    the poor, deprived, vulnerable, discriminated and marginalized sections <\/p>\n
    of the society, Hon’ble   Court has initiated, encouraged and propelled <\/p>\n
    the   public   interest   litigation.   The   litigation   is   upshot   and   product   of <\/p>\n
    Hon’ble  Apex Court’s deep and intense urge to fulfill its bounded duty <\/p>\n
    and constitutional obligation.  The courts expanded the meaning of right <\/p>\n
    to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The <\/p>\n
    rule   of   locus-standi   was   diluted   and   the   traditional   meaning   of <\/p>\n
    ‘aggrieved person’ was broadened to provide access to justice to a very <\/p>\n
    large section of the society which was otherwise not getting any benefit <\/p>\n
    from the judicial system. In paragraph 36, Hon’ble  Apex Court observes <\/p>\n
    that little Indians in large numbers seeking remedies in courts through <\/p>\n
    collective proceedings, instead of being driven to an expensive plurality <\/p>\n
    of litigations, is an affirmation of participative justice in our democracy.\n<\/p>\n
    Hon’ble     Court   states   that   the   narrow   concepts   of   ’cause   of   action’, <\/p>\n
    ‘person aggrieved’ and individual litigation are becoming obsolescent in <\/p>\n
    some jurisdictions.  In (2009)  15  SCC 351 (para 33)=2009  AIR SCW <\/p>\n
    5292   (A.   Abdul   Farook   vs.   Municipal   Council,   Perambalur),   in <\/p>\n
    paragraph     17,   Hon’ble     Apex   Court   noted   that   in   a   public   interest <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                      55<\/span><\/p>\n
    litigation of nature before it, it is not necessary for the Court to abide by <\/p>\n
    the strict rules of pleadings and even if it is found that the petitioners <\/p>\n
    are busy bodies, the courts while discharging  them, could proceed to <\/p>\n
    deal with the public interest litigation suo motu.\n<\/p>\n
                 This discussion also shows that there can not be any estoppel <\/p>\n
    or acquiescence in such matters when this Court has found the cause <\/p>\n
    presented to it as public cause and  cognizance is taken in larger public <\/p>\n
    interest.   Discussion   little   later   reveal   despite   the   reports   of   various <\/p>\n
    authorities, the wrongful and  highhanded  refusal by the respondents to <\/p>\n
    discharge   their   obligation,   as   also   efforts   made   by   them   to   protect <\/p>\n
    respondent   no.5   in   the   matter,   all   exposing   abuse   of   power   and <\/p>\n
    position. It emphasizes need to adopt approach adequate to restore  rule <\/p>\n
    of law and  a need for rejection of all technical objections being raised <\/p>\n
    by   respondent   no.5   and     other   respondents   to   support   him.     The <\/p>\n
    restraints recognized by Hon’ble   Apex Court are not meant to enable <\/p>\n
    wrongdoers   and   manipulators   to   avoid   the   legal   vindication   and   to <\/p>\n
    protect   or   to   succeed   in   enjoying   the   benefits   of   their   misdeeds   by <\/p>\n
    continuing   to   indulge   in   activities   prejudicial   to   public   at   large.\n<\/p>\n
    Respondent no.5 or for that purpose none of the respondents  before us <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                       56<\/span><\/p>\n
    have for a minute repented for their attitude and  acts.\n<\/p>\n
    13.          Argument   of   bar   to   entertain   a   PIL   due   to   availability   of <\/p>\n
    alternate remedy needs outright rejection  not only because facts here <\/p>\n
    call for a rather liberal approach but also as same is misconceived. Said <\/p>\n
    contention   is   based   on     Section   142   of   the   1958   Act.   Its   scope   is <\/p>\n
    explained by Full Bench of this Court in 2004(2) Mah.L.J. 874-para 44 –\n<\/p>\n
    (Sanjay Govind Sapkal vs. Collector of Dhule)  and<\/a>   2009(5) Mah.L.J.\n<\/p>\n
    711-para 9- (Sandip Diwakar Joshi vs. Corporation of City of Nagpur), <\/p>\n
    treats some what similar provision in City Of Nagpur Corporation Act, <\/p>\n
    1948,     as   alternate   remedy.  Contention   is,   that   petitioners   never <\/p>\n
    approached Zilla Parishad and  impleaded  it directly here  after matter <\/p>\n
    is treated as PIL . The bar of alternate remedy is self imposed and  never <\/p>\n
    absolute   in   writ   jurisdiction   under   Article     226   of   the   Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
    Rigour of such bar must get diluted or it must be held as not available in <\/p>\n
    PIL   jurisdiction.   In   present   facts,   when   matter   is   properly   taken <\/p>\n
    cognizance of as PIL, it is obvious that same is due to apparent failure on <\/p>\n
    part of State Government and  Local Bodies to effectively discharge their <\/p>\n
    statutory   obligations.   When   Petitioners   did   approach   Collector   and <\/p>\n
    Gram   Panchayat   for   redressal   and     those   authorities   ignored   it,   it   is <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                       57<\/span><\/p>\n
    obvious that their refusal to act is not mere omission. Even one Chief <\/p>\n
    Executive   Officer   of   respondent   no.6   Zilla   Parishad   has   found   all <\/p>\n
    structures   of   respondent   no.5   illegal.   Looking   to   the   large   scale <\/p>\n
    constructions undertaken and   completed by the respondent no.5 and <\/p>\n
    change   in   stance   of   authorities   to   favour     it   ,   their   collusion   with <\/p>\n
    respondent no.5 is seen. None of these authorities have come up with <\/p>\n
    defence   that   their   employees   noticed   these   structures   and     found <\/p>\n
    nothing wrong with it. We find that these Local Bodies, their employees <\/p>\n
    and     also   the   elected   representatives   have   tacitly   permitted   the <\/p>\n
    constructions  to come up. They are party to it and   are interested in <\/p>\n
    protecting   it.   The   deliberate   wrong   interpretation   of   communication <\/p>\n
    dated 14\/10\/1994 by Zilla Parishad itself exposes its bias in the matter.\n<\/p>\n
    respondent   no.6   has   filed   incorrect   affidavit   to   mislead   this   Court.\n<\/p>\n
    Asking the Petitioners to approach these authorities will be nothing but <\/p>\n
    to oblige  respondent no.5 by giving it a further and  undue time.  In the <\/p>\n
    light of observations of Hon’ble   Apex Court in  State of Uttarnchal vs. <\/p>\n
     Balwant Singh  Chaufal<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
                           -(supra), it is apparent that at least in facts at <\/p>\n
    hand, remedy under Section 142 can not be viewed as alternative and <\/p>\n
    equally efficacious remedy to bar exercise of its PIL jurisdiction by this <\/p>\n
    Court.    We are also considering the reports of Collector, Wardha; One <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                       58<\/span><\/p>\n
    Chief Executive  Officer of respondent no.6, Sub-divisional Officer and <\/p>\n
    Block Development Officer below and conduct of respondent no.4 and <\/p>\n
    6. These authorities did not act when law obliged them to and  helped <\/p>\n
    respondent no.5 at that crucial juncture. Their complicity in the matter <\/p>\n
    also shows that moving under Section 142 of the 1958 Act would have <\/p>\n
    been   an   empty   formality.     Bar   of   alternate   remedy   as   urged   in   this <\/p>\n
    situation   is   misconceived.    If   Gram   Panchayat   has   really   sent   the <\/p>\n
    resolutions   granting   sanction   to   structures   of   respondent   no.5   to <\/p>\n
    respondent no.6 Zilla Parishad as asserted by it, respondent no.6 could <\/p>\n
    have and  should have itself taken appropriate cognizance and  initiated <\/p>\n
    steps to stop those constructions.   Nothing prohibited it from initiating <\/p>\n
    those steps even during pendency of present PIL.\n<\/p>\n
    14.            Which Building laws or regulations apply  to constructions <\/p>\n
    raised by respondent no.5 is the next important issue.\n<\/p>\n
    (A).             Respondent   no.5   claims  that   permission   was   granted   by <\/p>\n
    respondent   no.4   and   its   structures   are   approved   by   that   respondent.\n<\/p>\n
    Respondent no.4 Gram Panchayat has in turn claimed that permission <\/p>\n
    has been granted as per Section 52 of the 1958 Act. It has stated that <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                      59<\/span><\/p>\n
    plots on which construction is made are not earmarked for extension of <\/p>\n
    village site and were beyond gaothan area i.e., beyond village or abadi <\/p>\n
    area.  Therefore   Extension   Rules,1967   are   not   applicable.   Hence,  it   is <\/p>\n
    relying upon only Section  52 of the 1958 Act. We therefore find merit <\/p>\n
    in contention of the Petitioners that as lands are beyond village area, the <\/p>\n
    permission   could   not   have   been   accorded   by   Gram   Panchayat.   Gram <\/p>\n
    Panchayat has also asserted that permission to change user was granted <\/p>\n
    by competent authority and  lay-out was also sanctioned by competent <\/p>\n
    revenue authority  i.e.,  Sub-divisional  Officer. Zilla  Parishad has in  its <\/p>\n
    affidavit   reply   filed   on   12\/11\/2009   stated   that   its   earlier   admission <\/p>\n
    about unauthorized nature of construction was wrong. It came up with <\/p>\n
    case   that   Municipal   Rules   are   not   applicable   here   and   permission <\/p>\n
    granted by Gram Panchayat is as per law.  It is urged that there is no <\/p>\n
    demarcation as residential or commercial under Section 52 of the 1958 <\/p>\n
    Act.   Its   earlier   affidavit   filed   on   20\/4\/2009   shows   applicability   of <\/p>\n
    Section 52 of the 1958 Act read with Extension Rules. It is urged that <\/p>\n
    40% of the plot area can be constructed upon and hence, permission <\/p>\n
    given by Gram Panchayat was legal. With reply filed on 12\/11\/2009, <\/p>\n
    copy   of   letter   dated   14\/10\/1994   is   also   produced   to   show   that <\/p>\n
    applicability of Municipal Rules stands   excluded by it. Bare perusal of <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                      60<\/span><\/p>\n
    communication dated 14\/10\/1994 is enough to reject this statement in <\/p>\n
    as much as, it emphasizes that Municipal Rules should be followed for <\/p>\n
    villages where there is no Municipal Council and development scheme <\/p>\n
    has not been framed. It expressly cancels letter dated 8\/12\/1993 to the <\/p>\n
    contrary issued by the Director, Town Planning.\n<\/p>\n
    (B).             It is obvious that  sites on which respondent no.5 has raised <\/p>\n
    constructions are in revenue area and   not included in area for which <\/p>\n
    development plan exists. Gram Panchayat can accord sanction if plots <\/p>\n
    approved in layout which is also sanctioned by revenue authorities are <\/p>\n
    within its limits. Admittedly, even as per respondent nos.4, 6 and  5 this <\/p>\n
    is not the case of extension of gaothan or village site. The Municipal <\/p>\n
    Rules   therefore   needed   to   be   followed.   Gram   Panchayat   can   not <\/p>\n
    skirt\/breach   Municipal   Byelaws   as   also   Extension   Rules   and   permit <\/p>\n
    constructions to come up or then   many-fold FSI to respondent no.5.\n<\/p>\n
    After   realizing   the   FSI   problem,  Gram   Panchayat   and     Zilla   Parishad <\/p>\n
    have thought it proper to invoke Section 52 only and urge that there is <\/p>\n
    no restriction either on user or on FSI in it. Thus effort is to show that <\/p>\n
    neither Municipal Rules nor the Extension Rules apply.   Section 52 of <\/p>\n
    the  1958 Act is applicable in entire existing village where old structures <\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                      61<\/span><\/p>\n
    stand and it is to be used along with  Extension Rules for sites beyond <\/p>\n
    existing village. When Gram Panchayat proceeds to grant permission to <\/p>\n
    construct, it has to be   either as per Section 52 or then these   Rules.\n<\/p>\n
    Even if it is presumed that it can grant sanction in relation to building <\/p>\n
    sites not in gaothan area or not forming a village site, it can not exercise <\/p>\n
    unbridled or unguided powers for that purpose. Only inference possible <\/p>\n
    is   legislature   has   permitted   Gram   Panchayat   to   use   said   power   in <\/p>\n
    relation to existing Gaothan or then new village site as per Extension <\/p>\n
    Rules and other places are excluded from its jurisdiction. In any case, if <\/p>\n
    such other places are held amenable to its jurisdiction, it follows that <\/p>\n
    construction   has   to   be   in   conformity   with   the   Municipal     Rules   by <\/p>\n
    adhering to letter dated 14\/10\/1994 on the subject. Respondent no.1 <\/p>\n
    Tahsildar     and     Collector   have   in   their   affidavit   pointed   out   that <\/p>\n
    permission given by respondent no.4 to respondent no.5   is not legal.\n<\/p>\n
    Bare   perusal   of   Extension   Rules   reveal   hollowness   in   contention   of <\/p>\n
    respondent nos. 4 to 6 that same are applicable to new village sites and <\/p>\n
    not in existing Gaothan. As the name of Rules indicates the purpose  is <\/p>\n
    also to regulate buildings. It is not only for extension of village on sites <\/p>\n
    recognized as such under Extension Rules.  Section 176 (2) of the 1958 <\/p>\n
    Act   provides   for   making   of   rules   under   entry   44   of   schedule   1   for <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                      62<\/span><\/p>\n
    prescribing the principles for the extension of village sites and also for <\/p>\n
    regulation of buildings. Chapter III of 1958 Act is about administrative <\/p>\n
    powers and   duties.   It’s Section 45 also   deals with those powers of <\/p>\n
    Panchayats.   Schedule-I   enlists   subjects   of   activities   including <\/p>\n
    development activities. Entry 44 reads “Extensions of village sites and <\/p>\n
    regulation  of  buildings  in  accordance   with  such  principles  as  may be <\/p>\n
    prescribed.”   The   Extension   Rules   are   framed   under   this   power.         It <\/p>\n
    contains no express provision which will show an intention to restrict its <\/p>\n
    applicability only to plots in layout for site selected for village extension <\/p>\n
    as per Rule 3. Here layout is sanctioned by revenue authorities and  is <\/p>\n
    not in village or gaothan area of respondent no.4. Thus it is a new site <\/p>\n
    not   forming   part   of   existing   village   and     Gram   Panchayat   can   not <\/p>\n
    overlook requirements of Extension Rules, if it claims right to regulate <\/p>\n
    building activities therein. Otherwise one will get two types of layouts in <\/p>\n
    same village. One where no Rules restricting FSI or requiring marginal <\/p>\n
    space apply and  other subject to it. It is therefore obvious that to  claim <\/p>\n
    right   to   regulate   building   operations   beyond   existing   gaothan   area, <\/p>\n
    Gram Panchayat has to accept that site is subject to its jurisdiction as per <\/p>\n
    Extension Rules.  Conclusions being reached little later in this judgment <\/p>\n
    will   reveal   that   construction   here   is   much   in   excess   of   40%   of <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                     63<\/span><\/p>\n
    permissible limit prescribed by Rule 7 of Extension Rules. Respondents 4 <\/p>\n
    to 6   are therefore attempting to avoid its application. They therefore <\/p>\n
    fall upon Section 52 of the 1958 Act.\n<\/p>\n
    (C)              Section 52 of the 1958 Act has heading “control on erection <\/p>\n
    of buildings.       Its sub-section 4 speaks of bye-laws also. Section 177 <\/p>\n
    speaks of bye-laws. Subsection 2 clause (viii) enables bye-law for the <\/p>\n
    repair and   removal of dangerous or ruinous buildings. Clause (ix) is <\/p>\n
    important and it permits bye-law to be framed for prevention of erection <\/p>\n
    of buildings without adequate provisions for ventilation or the laying out <\/p>\n
    or location of  streets. This language suggesting  a negative measure or <\/p>\n
    imposing a restriction itself is enough to gather that proposed building is <\/p>\n
    in crowded or congested area of village where there are no proper plots <\/p>\n
    laid   out.   Hence   when   re-erection   becomes   necessary   ,   the   bye-law <\/p>\n
    prohibiting it is envisaged so that at least at that stage some provision <\/p>\n
    for ventilation and  public street can be insisted upon. Thus design is to <\/p>\n
    introduce at-least basic planning in old congested area of a village. No <\/p>\n
    bye-laws are pointed out to  us by any of the Respondents. In any case, <\/p>\n
    it is obvious that such bye-laws can not be extended to constructions in <\/p>\n
    dispute before us.   It is enough here to note that Section 52(6) of the <\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                      64<\/span><\/p>\n
    1958   Act   expressly   stipulates   that   nothing   in   Section   52   applies   to <\/p>\n
    buildings   erected   for   industrial   or   commercial   purpose.   Here.\n<\/p>\n
    respondent   no.5   has   not   erected   building   of   college   or   Hostels   for <\/p>\n
    residential purpose. When basic purpose or design is to introduce some <\/p>\n
    discipline or possible elements of planning even in existing village, the <\/p>\n
    legislation can not be construed in a manner sacrificing the same for <\/p>\n
    sites beyond village or new sites. It will be enabling a new congested <\/p>\n
    village to come up at different place and   defeat the very purpose of <\/p>\n
    enacting   Section     52   or   the   Extension   Rules.   Constructions   to   be <\/p>\n
    sanctioned by Gram Panchayat will be either on sites subject to Section <\/p>\n
    52 or then the Extension Rules. No other type of sites are envisaged by <\/p>\n
    the   1958   Act   and     Rules\/Bye-laws   framed   under   it.     The   nature   of <\/p>\n
    permissible activity i.e.,one which is not commercial or industrial will <\/p>\n
    have to be understood accordingly so as to harmonize with this design.\n<\/p>\n
    Definitely,   a   new   structure   of   new   educational   institute   can   not   be <\/p>\n
    introduced   in   existing   Gaothan   under   Section   52(6)   in   this   mode   or <\/p>\n
    manner.   Thus effort of respondent no.5 and  respondent nos.4 and  6 <\/p>\n
    to take shelter behind Section 52 is erroneous and  unsustainable.  Shri <\/p>\n
    De,   learned   counsel   had   argued   that   though   in   plans   submitted   to <\/p>\n
    respondent no.4, the structure was shown as “house”, but actual map <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                          65<\/span><\/p>\n
    has   shown   the   rooms   as   library,class-rooms,common   room   etc. <\/p>\n
    i.e.,revealing the decision to use it for college. The argument overlooks <\/p>\n
    this   scheme   and     bar   in   Section   52(6)   and   also   the   fact   that   had <\/p>\n
    sanction been sought for college, the Gram Panchayat could not have <\/p>\n
    even touched that plan. This argument therefore exposes the collusion <\/p>\n
    between   respondent   no.5   and     respondent   no.4   to   defeat   the   legal <\/p>\n
    provisions. Thus trust reposed in Respondents by the democracy through <\/p>\n
    the Statutes under which they are born has been betrayed.  Respondent <\/p>\n
    no.5 through Dr. Rajesh Ghanshyam Bhoyar has filed undertaking on <\/p>\n
    affidavit   dated   27\/6\/2007   with   Gram   Panchayat   which   also   shows <\/p>\n
    construction of house and mentions that though layout is sanctioned, it <\/p>\n
    is not as per rules.  We find law as applied in  Manohar Lal vs. Ugrasen <\/p>\n
    and    Ghaziabad   Development   Authority   vs.  Ugrasen   (supra),  by   the <\/p>\n
    Hon’ble  Apex Court more germane here.\n<\/p>\n
    (D)              When   Section     52   of   the   1958   Act   is   out   of   picture   and <\/p>\n
    contention   is   Extension   Rules   are   not     applicable   to   the   layout   of <\/p>\n
    respondent no.5 here,  it is apparent that Gram Panchayat has exercised <\/p>\n
    powers over area or constructions not subjected to its jurisdiction.   In <\/p>\n
    present matter, in any case, the policy as envisaged in communication <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                      66<\/span><\/p>\n
    dated 14\/10\/1994 could not have been ignored by the Gram Panchayat.\n<\/p>\n
    Respondent nos. 4 and   6 can not contend that this communication is <\/p>\n
    not binding upon them. Contention of respondent no.5 that Municipal <\/p>\n
    Rules are only model bye-laws not even binding on “C” class municipal <\/p>\n
    council  need  not  be  considered here  as these  bye-laws  are  not  being <\/p>\n
    forced   upon   respondent   no.4   by   any   statute.   State   Government   with <\/p>\n
    desire to have uniformity in such development in areas for which there <\/p>\n
    are no development plans, has asked the authorities to follow it. Validity <\/p>\n
    of   this   communication   is   not   attacked   before   us   by   any   of   the <\/p>\n
    Respondents. Section 323 of the 1965 Act or its Sub-section (6) have <\/p>\n
    therefore   no   bearing   on   this   matter.   Reliance   upon   its   appendix   to <\/p>\n
    demonstrate that educational activities viz., college or hostel are allowed <\/p>\n
    thereunder   in   residential   zone   is   without   any   merit   in   as   much   as <\/p>\n
    respondent nos. 4 to 6 are not accepting applicability of 14\/10\/1994 <\/p>\n
    communication   and   building   plans   of   respondent   no.5   are   not <\/p>\n
    sanctioned under the Municipal Rules. Order dated 12\/10\/2007 passed <\/p>\n
    by   SDO,   though   may   permit   non-agricultural   user   for   educational <\/p>\n
    purpose  after inviting objections or then  permission given by Collector <\/p>\n
    on 9\/8\/2005 to purchase by respondent no.5 of survey no. 63\/1 area <\/p>\n
    1.87 H from one Siddartha Doifode, though be for educational purpose, <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                      67<\/span><\/p>\n
    alleged layout therein showing various plots of not more than 150 Sq.\n<\/p>\n
    Mtrs.   or   200   Sq.   Mtrs.   also   have   been   accepted   by   SDO   or   Revenue <\/p>\n
    Authorities.   Hence,  after  layout  of   such  small  plots   came   legally  into <\/p>\n
    force, its commercial exploitation is ruled out. As small plots could not <\/p>\n
    have   been   put   to   such   user,   respondent   no.5   has   un-authorizedly <\/p>\n
    clubbed them together and  this consolidation of said plots needed to be <\/p>\n
    justified by respondent nos. 6 and   4.   It is also evident that though <\/p>\n
    Municipal   Rules   permit   educational   activities   in   such   lay-out,   while <\/p>\n
    sanctioning   the   proposed   buildings   to   house   the   college   or   hostel, <\/p>\n
    feasibility thereof needs to be examined and provisions for FSI or FAR <\/p>\n
    and   marginal   space   are   to   be   scrupulously   guarded.   The   sanctioning <\/p>\n
    authority in that eventuality, has to find out available infrastructure and <\/p>\n
    then match it with load of such project in that area. Small plots meant <\/p>\n
    for   residence   of   a   family   can   not   be   highhandedly   allowed   to   be <\/p>\n
    amalgamated   illegally   and   put   to   such   unforeseen   purpose   thereby <\/p>\n
    exposing layout to a burden which it was\/is never designed to shoulder.\n<\/p>\n
    15.          It   also   follows   from   the   above   discussion   that   respondent <\/p>\n
    no.5   has   not   obtained   sanction   from   competent   authority   at   all   and <\/p>\n
    respondent nos. 4 to 6 are aware of this.\n<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                          68<\/span><\/p>\n
    (A).             If   Gram   Panchayat   has   to   accord   sanction,   as   the   area   is <\/p>\n
    beyond its Gaothan,   40% of each plot can only be constructed. Gram <\/p>\n
    Panchayat accepts that lay-out was not sanctioned by it. It therefore can <\/p>\n
    not modify the lay-out by permitting consolidation of two or more plots <\/p>\n
    together   and   by   clubbing   their   FSI\/FAR.   As   Municipal   Rules   apply, <\/p>\n
    sanction for construction also has to be from authority who sanctioned <\/p>\n
    lay-out and the clubbing or consolidation must also be approved by that <\/p>\n
    authority.     On   1\/12\/2010,   this   Court   directed   respondent   no.5   to <\/p>\n
    disclose    when and   under whose orders plots were consolidated. By <\/p>\n
    orders   dated   12\/1\/2011,   this   Court   directed   respondent   no.4   Gram <\/p>\n
    Panchayat       to   file   separate   affidavit   in   relation     to   each   structure <\/p>\n
    erected within its jurisdiction giving details of permission, provision of <\/p>\n
    law under which permission was granted and  whether such permissions <\/p>\n
    are in conformity with law. Till date no orders permitting consolidation <\/p>\n
    are pointed out either by respondent no.4 or by respondent no.5. As per <\/p>\n
    Municipal Rules, 60% of plot area can be constructed and ground + two <\/p>\n
    floors are only allowed. Municipal Rules do not contemplate change or <\/p>\n
    modification   in   plot   or   clubbing\/consolidation   thereof   at   stage   of <\/p>\n
    sanction   to   building   plan.   Here,   respondent   no.5   has   not   applied   to <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                       69<\/span><\/p>\n
    proper   authority   for   such   sanction   and     there   is   no   order   of <\/p>\n
    consolidation of plots. None of the respondent nos. 4 to 6 have complied <\/p>\n
    with above directions of this Court. But then, along with pursis later on <\/p>\n
    amended as submission (not supported by any affidavit), the respondent <\/p>\n
    no.5 has filed documents in purported compliance with orders of this <\/p>\n
    Court dated 1\/12\/2010. Those documents are about 6 structures on 4 <\/p>\n
    different survey numbers viz. survey no. 63\/1, 55\/1, 60\/2 and   56\/1.\n<\/p>\n
    We proceed to consider the same one by one.\n<\/p>\n
    (B).             As per it, total 6 plots i.e.,plot no. 37 to 42 in survey no. 55\/1 <\/p>\n
    are used to erect a single educational building or college building. Said <\/p>\n
    building is total 4 floors and “24\/4\/2006” is mentioned on it as date of <\/p>\n
    sanction.     6 more plots from same survey number i.e., plot nos. 31 to <\/p>\n
    36 are again used for erection of a college building as per plan cleared <\/p>\n
    on 30\/4\/2002. The plans shown as sanctioned do not show location of <\/p>\n
    these  plots in layout on survey no. 55\/1 or then  part of structure as <\/p>\n
    falling on any particular plot out of 6 plots mentioned in application for <\/p>\n
    sanction.   Admittedly,   there   is   only   one   college   building   and   hence, <\/p>\n
    which  plot number supports the given portion  thereof is  not clear. It <\/p>\n
    appears   that   G+2   structure   of   college   was   sanctioned   in   2002   itself.\n<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                        70<\/span><\/p>\n
    Why for adding one more floor i.e.,3rd story, other 6 plots were required <\/p>\n
    to be added in 2006 is not clear from drawings. Architect drawing plans <\/p>\n
    has not  given total plot area or areas and  portion being left open to sky <\/p>\n
    in any of these plans. Order giving sanction to these 12 plots with layout <\/p>\n
    plan is not filed.\n<\/p>\n
                          Apart from this, plot no. 4 in survey number 63\/1 is also <\/p>\n
    shown   as   used   for   educational   building.   Apparently   it   is   mentioned <\/p>\n
    twice in the list with pursis and plans\/maps   are also more than one.\n<\/p>\n
    First   plan   shows   location   of   plot   no.   4   also   and     plan   is   shown   as <\/p>\n
    sanctioned by Gram Panchayat on 29\/5\/2008. It is G+2 floors. Second <\/p>\n
    plan approved on 31\/12\/2003 shows construction of college building on <\/p>\n
    plot nos. 1 to 3 in survey no. 63\/1. In previous plan plot no. 4 is shown <\/p>\n
    on   extreme   south   at   boundary   of   lay-out.   Plot   no.   1   is   at   northern <\/p>\n
    boundary stretching all along its northern boundary. An internal road of <\/p>\n
    9   Mtrs.   separates   it   from   open   space   and     plot   no.2,   both   located <\/p>\n
    adjacent but parallel to plot 1 and  on its southern side. After this open <\/p>\n
    space and  plot 2, there is another 9 Mtrs. Road parallel to earlier road <\/p>\n
    and  then plot no. 4 forming southern boundary. On the western side of <\/p>\n
    plot no. 1, 2 and   4 is north-south 9 Mtrs. road and beyond it i.e., at <\/p>\n
    western   boundary   of   layout   is   shown   plot   no.   3.   Thus   plot   4   forms <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                       71<\/span><\/p>\n
    southern   boundary   of   layout   in   63\/1   while   plot   no.   3   constitutes   its <\/p>\n
    western boundary as per this plan. Location map in relation to structure <\/p>\n
    in second plan on plot no. 1 to 3 shows plot nos. 1 to 3 spread on south-\n<\/p>\n
    east side of layout while plot no. 4 as farthest plot on northern side but <\/p>\n
    on north-east only   in layout.     After these plots 1 to 4, a south-north <\/p>\n
    road parallel to all 4 plots is shown on their western side. On the other <\/p>\n
    side of this road, 6 other plots are shown. Open space has also been <\/p>\n
    shown at north-west corner of layout with 3 Mtrs. road separating it.\n<\/p>\n
    Both 9 Mtrs. road shown in later location map do not figure here. Thus <\/p>\n
    entire   orientation   of   layout   undergoes   a   drastic   change   in   later   map <\/p>\n
    prepared   by   very   same   architect.   How   the   placements   of   plots   or <\/p>\n
    location   of   roads   are   changed,   that   too   few   years   after   raising   of <\/p>\n
    structure as per plan of 2003 is not explained by anybody. No revised <\/p>\n
    order of revenue authority sanctioning such change is produced.\n<\/p>\n
                 Survey no. 60\/2 with plot nos. 39 to 44 – total 6 plots, is <\/p>\n
    shown to support hostel building. This plan is shown as sanctioned on <\/p>\n
    19\/8\/2006   but   then   there   is   no   location   map   or   layout   plan   to <\/p>\n
    understand placement inter-se of these 6 plots or the part of 4 storied <\/p>\n
    building which individually they may support.\n<\/p>\n
                 Plan   sanctioned   on   27\/6\/2007   shows   a   hostel   building <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:35 :::<\/span>
\n                                      72<\/span><\/p>\n
    consisting of 4 floors. It is on 6 plots i.e.,plot nos. 12 to 17 in survey no.\n<\/p>\n
    56\/1.   Petitioners   have   their   residential   houses   in   same   layout.\n<\/p>\n
    Respondent no.5 has with this building plan given a location map which <\/p>\n
    again does not show plots 12 to 17 separately. It shows a continuous <\/p>\n
    stretch of land without indicating any distinctive number and   internal <\/p>\n
    divisions.     Hence, here also placement inter-se of these 6 plots or the <\/p>\n
    part   of   4   storied   building   they   support   can   not   be   comprehended.\n<\/p>\n
    Petitioners have referred to this structure in their letter to this Court. As <\/p>\n
    per   layout   produced   by   petitioners   these   plots   are   spread   across  and <\/p>\n
    form   part   of   northern   boundary   of   layout.   As   per   order   of   Tahsildar <\/p>\n
    dated 12\/2\/1989, total area of these 6 plots is 150 Sq. Mtrs. each X 6 <\/p>\n
    plots = 900 Sq. Mtrs.\n<\/p>\n
    16.          On   the   strength   of   these   maps   and     details   provided   by <\/p>\n
    respondent no.5, Petitioners have made calculations to point out what is <\/p>\n
    40% permissible plinth area   under Extension Rules and   60% under <\/p>\n
    Municipal   Rules.   Those   details   building   wise   can   be   summarized <\/p>\n
    below:–\n<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:35 :::<\/span>
\n                                          73<\/span><\/p>\n
    Building             Total area             Construction           Permissible \n    and  Survey         of  plot\/s                    done.               Construction \n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n    Number.              In Sq. Mtrs.            In Sq. Mtrs.          in Sq. Mtrs. \n                                                                          40%         60% \n\n\n\n\n                                                             \n    1(55\/1)                 1035 \/                      2497               414          621.\n\n    2(55\/1)                 1020\/                       2566               408          612.\n\n    3(60\/2)                 1386\/                       2196               548          828.\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n    4(56\/1)                  900\/                       1822.29           336          540.\n                             \n    5(63\/1)                 1H.6R.                     1830.76.\n                            \n    6(63\/1)                 2 Acres.                   4178.92.    \n      \n\n\n      Thus,   in   first   4   buildings   above   in   survey   55\/1,60\/2   and     56\/1, \n   \n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
      construction is much more and  percentage by which it exceeds is also <\/p>\n
      exorbitant.   Apart   from   other   apparent   violations   already   noticed, <\/p>\n
      absence   of   any   marginal   space   is   the   main   grievance   about   these   4 <\/p>\n
      structures.  Same  grievance   is   also  made   about  remaining   2  buildings <\/p>\n
      i.e., at number 5 and  6, but then looking to the area of plot in survey <\/p>\n
      no. 63\/1, We fail to understand it. Moreover Petitioners have not given <\/p>\n
      details of permissible 40% or 60% construction area about these two <\/p>\n
      buildings.   In   so   far   as   survey   no.   56\/1   is   concerned,   Petitioners   are <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:35 :::<\/span>
\n                                       74<\/span><\/p>\n
    residents   of   layout   in   it   only   and     percentage   of   excess   construction <\/p>\n
    varies   from   500%     to   400%   depending   upon   the   relevant   building <\/p>\n
    legislation.   As   we   have   found   that   Municipal   Rules   are   relevant, <\/p>\n
    permissible plinth area is 540 Sq. Mtrs. and structure can not be G+3.\n<\/p>\n
    Structure above 2nd floor is thus illegal.  However if there is no marginal <\/p>\n
    space by the side of  any of the structures, it is apparent that entire land <\/p>\n
    has been constructed upon and that itself will exceed 40% or 60% of the <\/p>\n
    land area i.e.,of plots concerned together. Hence, G+3 in such situation <\/p>\n
    will be 10 times to 6.5 times of the legally permitted construction. Here <\/p>\n
    we can not ignore that Petitioners have not objected to the sanction by <\/p>\n
    Gram Panchayat on the ground that sanction has to be by some other <\/p>\n
    authority. They only point out that sanction has to be as per Municipal <\/p>\n
    Rules. Perhaps their houses in layout in Survey 56\/1 also have sanction <\/p>\n
    from   Gram   Panchayat.   In   reply   affidavit   as   filed   on   29\/1\/2008, <\/p>\n
    respondent no.5 has asserted that respondent no.4 Gram Panchayat has <\/p>\n
    followed Municipal Rules. Even by adding paragraph 11(c) to this reply <\/p>\n
    on 15\/9\/2008, said stand is attempted to be substantiated by relying <\/p>\n
    upon the government communication dated 14\/10\/1994. After realizing <\/p>\n
    the   excess   construction   above   2nd  floor,   the   stand   is   sought   to   be <\/p>\n
    changed   by   urging   that   there   can   be   no   estoppel   against   law.   The <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:35 :::<\/span>
\n                                      75<\/span><\/p>\n
    provision in Section  52 of the 1958 Act is conveniently found open to <\/p>\n
    raise defences to all types of violations and accordingly stand has been <\/p>\n
    modified with support of Zilla Parishad.  But then it is indisputable that <\/p>\n
    respondent no.5 has consolidated various plots sanctioned as separate <\/p>\n
    plots   in   layout   and   raised   construction   upon   it   of   either   Hostel   or <\/p>\n
    College buildings. The orders permitting such amalgamation of plots to <\/p>\n
    support single structure will have to be passed by modification of layout <\/p>\n
    originally sanctioned and therefore, by competent revenue authority as <\/p>\n
    per Maharashtra Land Revenue Code,1966. Those orders will also need <\/p>\n
    technical evaluation of the proposed user  and existing situation on spot.\n<\/p>\n
    No such orders are pleaded or pointed out despite orders of this Court <\/p>\n
    either by respondent no.5 or respondent no.4.   Respondent nos.1 and  2 <\/p>\n
    have  come  up  specifically with  stand that  said construction  is illegal.\n<\/p>\n
    Construction effected by amalgamation or consolidation of various plots <\/p>\n
    is  thus   in   breach  of   sanctioned   layout  plan   itself.  It  at-once  becomes <\/p>\n
    clear that there are no such orders by any authority and  unauthorized <\/p>\n
    structures   and     use   thereof   by   respondent   no.5   is   bound   to   exert <\/p>\n
    unforeseen   pressure   or     load   to   the   prejudice   and     annoyance   of <\/p>\n
    residents.\n<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:35 :::<\/span>
\n                                         76<\/span><\/p>\n
    17.               We will now like to see reports by public authorities as filed <\/p>\n
    on record.\n<\/p>\n
    (A)              This   Court   received   the   report   of   Collector,   Wardha   dated <\/p>\n
    14\/12\/2007.  It mentions  that  on survey no. 56\/1, area  2H.02R non-\n<\/p>\n
    agricultural   user   has   been   allowed   by   Tahsildar   on   12\/2\/1989   and <\/p>\n
    residential user on it is on. It also points out purchase of plot nos. 12 to <\/p>\n
    17   in   that   layout   by   respondent   no.5   and   Gram   Panchayat   on <\/p>\n
    27\/6\/2007   has   sanctioned     construction   of     house   on   it.   Thereafter, <\/p>\n
    respondent   no.5   started   construction   of   hostel   on   it.   Construction   is <\/p>\n
    found to be illegal and  hence instructions to stop it were issued  and as <\/p>\n
    jurisdiction  to deal  with  it vests   with  respondent no.6 Zilla Parishad, <\/p>\n
    Chief Executive Officer was informed.\n<\/p>\n
    (B)              Sub-divisional Officer has written to Chief Executive Officer <\/p>\n
    on 14\/12\/2007 in response to Zilla Parishad’s letter dated 5\/12\/2007 <\/p>\n
    and intimated that said construction being illegal needed to be stopped.\n<\/p>\n
    His attention is also invited to Section 142 of the 1958 Act and  powers <\/p>\n
    available   to   Zilla   Parishad   to   review   the   sanction   granted   by   Gram <\/p>\n
    Panchayat.  He   has   also  communicated   that  under   Section     52  of   the <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:35 :::<\/span>
\n                                               77<\/span><\/p>\n
    1958   Act,   the   permission   could   not   have   been   granted   and     though <\/p>\n
    Gram Panchayat was asked to stop that work, Gram Panchayat did not <\/p>\n
    take   any   steps.   Hence,   SDO   pointed   out   need   to   take   action   under <\/p>\n
    Section     39   of   that   Act   against   Sarpanch   and     Secretary   of   Gram <\/p>\n
    Panchayat.\n<\/p>\n
    (C)              Report   of   Block   Development   Officer,   Panchayat   Samiti, <\/p>\n
    Wardha   dated   20\/11\/2007   mentions   how   these   plots   12   to   17   are <\/p>\n
    purchased by respondent no.5. He also states that Dr. Rajesh Bhoyar on <\/p>\n
    2\/1\/2007   sought   permission   to   construct   girl’s   hostel   but   Gram <\/p>\n
    Panchayat   permitted   construction   of   house.   Sanction   is   stated   to   be <\/p>\n
    beyond rules and as no marginal space is left, construction is illegal. He <\/p>\n
    states that work is in progress and pits have   been dug in 13 meters <\/p>\n
    width and   60 meters length, nature of construction is commercial on <\/p>\n
    residential   plots\/layout   and   hence,   contrary   to   Section     52(6)   of   the <\/p>\n
    1958 Act. This report of BDO is in pursuance of letter of Deputy   CEO <\/p>\n
    dated 1\/10\/2007 and   complaint of Petitioners on “Lokshahi Din” i.e., <\/p>\n
    Democracy Day. Its copy is sent by him to Collector, CEO as also Deputy <\/p>\n
    CEO of Zilla Parishad and Sarpanch\/Secretary of Gram Panchayat.\n<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:35 :::<\/span>
\n                                           78<\/span><\/p>\n
    (D)              We   also   have   a   spot   inspection   report   of   Naib   Tahsildar <\/p>\n
    regarding visit dated 17\/11\/2007 on record. It mentions plot nos. 12 to <\/p>\n
    17 in survey no. 56\/1, digging work to erect pillars for boys and  girls <\/p>\n
    hostel.   Layout   and     plots   are   stated   to   be   for   residential   use   and <\/p>\n
    intention of respondent no.5   to put it to commercial use as hostel is <\/p>\n
    noted.\n<\/p>\n
    (E).             Chief   Executive   Officer,   Zilla   Parishad   has   on   5\/12\/2007 <\/p>\n
    noted   that   Shri   Rajesh   Bhoyar   sought   permission   to   build   hostel   but <\/p>\n
    Gram Panchayat permitted him to build house. It is further stated by her <\/p>\n
    that no marginal space is left and construction was illegal in the light of <\/p>\n
    Section 52(6) of the 1958 Act. It is also noted that though the Gram <\/p>\n
    Panchayat was asked to stop that work, its cognizance was not taken.\n<\/p>\n
    (F)              Report of Block Development Officer after visit on 3\/1\/2008 <\/p>\n
    reveals that the college of respondent no.5 viz. New Arts College is in <\/p>\n
    Nalwadi in Murarka layout. It is in survey no. 55\/1 and total area of said <\/p>\n
    survey is 14320. 00 Sq. Mtrs. He has pointed out that Rajesh Bhoyar <\/p>\n
    purchased plot 31(225Sq.Mtrs),  his  son  Dhiraj  purchased plot  no. 33 <\/p>\n
    and   34( area-150Sq.Mtrs. each). Adjacent plots 35(area-150 Sq.Mtrs) <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:35 :::<\/span>
\n                                     79<\/span><\/p>\n
    and     36   (area-195   Sq.   Mtrs.)   are   purchased   by   Pankaj-other   son   of <\/p>\n
    Rajesh. Thus 6 plots in a row were purchased. Gram Panchayat gave <\/p>\n
    permission   on   22\/10\/1999   but   then   the   work   was   not   started.   A <\/p>\n
    consolidated house plan was then submitted by these three persons and <\/p>\n
    Gram Panchayat on 30\/8\/2000 gave sanction to this revised plan. No <\/p>\n
    construction was started and  Principal of College submitted plan for 3 <\/p>\n
    storied building which was cleared by Gram Panchayat on 30\/4\/2002.\n<\/p>\n
    Thereafter, a three storied college building was constructed in violation <\/p>\n
    of Gaothan principles. Thus in terms of Section  52(3) of the 1958 Act, <\/p>\n
    the   plan had  lapsed but the  the  revisions   were  allowed mechanically <\/p>\n
    without noticing either the facts seen in plan or then law. Trouble to <\/p>\n
    residents due to college students is also noted in spot inspection. Block <\/p>\n
    Development   Officer   has   found   it   proper   to   advise   complaints <\/p>\n
    i.e.,residents to approach Court.\n<\/p>\n
    (G).             In this background, judgment reported at 2009(2) Mah.L.J.\n<\/p>\n
    714 (Shirdi Nagar Panchayat vs. Gordia Budget Hotel) and  relied upon <\/p>\n
    by Shri  De, learned Counsel,  heavily needs scrutiny.  From arguments <\/p>\n
    it can be gathered that it is this judgment which prompted respondent <\/p>\n
    no.5 and   6 to alter their stance and   to bank upon Section   52 of the <\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:35 :::<\/span>
\n                                      80<\/span><\/p>\n
    1958 Act. There the learned Single Judge has considered Section 52 of <\/p>\n
    Bombay   Village   Panchayat   Act,   1958,   Section   340(2)   of   Maharashtra <\/p>\n
    Municipal   Councils,   Nagar   Panchayat   and   Industrial   Townships   Act, <\/p>\n
    1965 and  Section 43, 156 of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning <\/p>\n
    Act, 1966. Question of formation of Municipal Council and  its effect on <\/p>\n
    building   permission   granted   by   erstwhile   village   Panchayat   has   been <\/p>\n
    gone into and  it is noted that respondent’s construction had commenced <\/p>\n
    within   one   year.   Hence,   in   view   of   the   order   passed   by   the   State <\/p>\n
    Government   u\/s   340(2)   of   Municipalities   Act,   the   said   building <\/p>\n
    permission   granted   by   Shirdi   Village   Panchayat   continued   in   force <\/p>\n
    within the area of Shirdi municipality, respondent was found entitled to <\/p>\n
    carry on the building construction in accordance with the said building <\/p>\n
    plan   even   after   10-1-1990   when   municipal   council   came   into   being.\n<\/p>\n
    However   as   on   29.3.1990   notification   of   its   intention   to   prepare   the <\/p>\n
    development plan for Shirdi u\/s 43 of Town Planning Act was published <\/p>\n
    by the Government, after 29-3-1990, the respondent is held entitled to <\/p>\n
    carry out construction only in accordance with the draft development <\/p>\n
    plan and that too only after obtaining a building permission u\/s 44 and <\/p>\n
    45 of Town Planning Act. It is held that no construction could be carried <\/p>\n
    out   without   such   permission  in   view   of   the  express   bar   contained   in <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:35 :::<\/span>
\n                                        81<\/span><\/p>\n
    section   156   (b)   of   Town   Planning   Act.   The   Shirdi   Village   Panchayat <\/p>\n
    granted   permission   to   respondent   no.1   to   construct   the   ground+7 <\/p>\n
    storied building. Soon thereafter the construction was commenced and <\/p>\n
    till January, 1990, R.C.C. framework of the ground+2 upper floors was <\/p>\n
    completed. On 10th January, 1990, the Government of Maharashtra, by <\/p>\n
    virtue of the powers vested in it under the provisions of the Maharashtra <\/p>\n
    Municipal   Councils,   Nagar   Panchayat   and   Industrial   Townships   Act, <\/p>\n
    1965 (for short the Municipalities  Act) issued a notification declaring <\/p>\n
    that with effect from 10th  January, 1990 the area within the limits of the <\/p>\n
    revenue village and gaothan of village Shirdi would be a municipal area.\n<\/p>\n
    Nature   of   construction   either   as   commercial   or   otherwise   allowed   in <\/p>\n
    gaothan area of Shirdi or then bar under Section  52(6) of the 1958 Act <\/p>\n
    are   the   issues   not   required   to   be   looked   into   in   this   judgment.   This <\/p>\n
    judgment   therefore   does   not   lay   down   any   law   relevant   for   present <\/p>\n
    adjudication.\n<\/p>\n
    18.          Consideration by us above of various reports and   facts also <\/p>\n
    reveals that though illegalities came to knowledge of Chief and  Deputy <\/p>\n
    CEO of Zilla Parishad,  Sarpanch and  Secretary of Gram Panchayat, the <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:35 :::<\/span>
\n                                      82<\/span><\/p>\n
    same   were   overlooked   and   illegalities   were   allowed   or   tolerated     by <\/p>\n
    permitting respondent no.5 to complete the structures without stopping <\/p>\n
    the construction activity. Can such Respondents or the even respondent <\/p>\n
    no.5 be heard raising objection about availability of alternate remedy <\/p>\n
    under Section   142 of the 1958 Act ?     Answer obviously is “No”. As <\/p>\n
    according to respondent nos. 4 to 6,  Municipal Rules do not apply and <\/p>\n
    sanction is not sought or granted under the same, reliance thereupon to <\/p>\n
    urge that educational activities are permitted thereunder in residential <\/p>\n
    area, is misconceived. In any case, in that eventuality, respondent no.5 <\/p>\n
    has to explain how its construction of G+3 and in excess of 60% of the <\/p>\n
    plot   area   (FSI)   can   be   viewed   as   legal   even   under   it.   When   the <\/p>\n
    constructions are contrary to both the laws i.e.,Extension Rules or then <\/p>\n
    Municipal Rules, the effort of respondent no.5 to justify it has to fail.\n<\/p>\n
    Not only this  as it is  in excess of permissible  FSI under any of these <\/p>\n
    Rules and  also breach the marginal space requirement, the same are not <\/p>\n
    entirely compoundable and can not be regularized. Section 52(6) of the <\/p>\n
    1958   Act   renders   all   sanctions   given   by   Gram   Panchayat   bad.   Thus <\/p>\n
    having   raised   structures   contrary   to   law   highhandedly   and   due   to <\/p>\n
    influence, respondent no.5 can not raise defenses like acquiescence or <\/p>\n
    estoppel   against   the   Petitioners.   The   spot   visit   by   various   authorities <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:35 :::<\/span>
\n                                       83<\/span><\/p>\n
    may be without  previous   notice  to or behind  the  back of  respondent <\/p>\n
    no.5,   still   respondent   no.5   has   failed   to   bring   on   record   anything   to <\/p>\n
    show even possibility of prejudice to it because of the same. Petitioners <\/p>\n
    may   have   purchased   their   plots\/houses   even   after   the   completion   of <\/p>\n
    impugned constructions and   were already put to use, still they have <\/p>\n
    every right to make all efforts to restore the legal user in the layout.\n<\/p>\n
    Even an individual has that locus and  grievance of respondent no.5 that <\/p>\n
    only handful of residents are making it or majority is   not supporting <\/p>\n
    their   cause,   is   unsustainable.   Endeavor   of   respondent   no.5   to <\/p>\n
    demonstrate   that   these   structures   are   being   used   for   providing   free <\/p>\n
    education and  free residential facilities to backward class students also <\/p>\n
    does not render them legal. If such arguments are accepted, influential <\/p>\n
    organizations like respondent no.5 will buy  lands ,develop and  use it as <\/p>\n
    per their wish and succeed in forcing that user upon law and   society.\n<\/p>\n
    Respondent no.5 in such situation can not contend that its structures are <\/p>\n
    old and   hence, cognizance of grievance against it can not be taken in <\/p>\n
    PIL   or   then   at   the   instance   of   Petitioners   who   also   may   have   raised <\/p>\n
    excess constructions. Respondent nos. 4 and  6 are legally duty bound to <\/p>\n
    take action in respect of such violations by Petitioners but then that does <\/p>\n
    not stop this Court from taking suitable steps against respondent no.5.\n<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:35 :::<\/span>
\n                                        84<\/span><\/p>\n
    Contention that Petitioners have made grievance about other structures <\/p>\n
    after one year of cognizance of petition as PIL by this Court, is therefore <\/p>\n
    erroneous   and     no   law   stops   this   Court   from   acting   in   such   matters <\/p>\n
    where   there   is   manifest   abuse   of   position.       There   is   no   question   of <\/p>\n
    amendment resulting in any back door introduction of any cause in PIL <\/p>\n
    after this Court allowed that amendment. By allowing that amendment <\/p>\n
    on   9\/6\/2008,   this   Court   has   accepted   that   grievance   also   as   PIL.\n<\/p>\n
    Moreover, here the Hon’ble  Chief Justice has after perusal of grievance <\/p>\n
    as contained in letter dated 8\/10\/2007 written by the Petitioners found <\/p>\n
    it necessary to take cognizance as PIL. The Senior\/Administrative Judge <\/p>\n
    at Nagpur had in the meanwhile independently called for report from <\/p>\n
    Collector, Wardha and   notice to Respondents in the matter has been <\/p>\n
    ordered   only   after   perusal   of   that   report.   Thus,   after   prima-facie <\/p>\n
    satisfaction only report was called and   Senior Judge of this Court while <\/p>\n
    taking up the matter on judicial side ,has passed these orders issuing <\/p>\n
    notice.  Hence,  contention   that   Senior  administrative   judge   at   Nagpur <\/p>\n
    did not apply mind or Hon’ble   The Chief Justice at Bombay could not <\/p>\n
    have   passed   orders   taking   cognizance   are   all   unwarranted  in   present <\/p>\n
    facts. It is also explicit that relevant investigation was then carried out <\/p>\n
    and  thereafter only the cognizance to the prejudice of respondent no.5 <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:35 :::<\/span>
\n                                       85<\/span><\/p>\n
    was   taken,   that   too   by   asking   it   to   show   cause.   The   contention   that <\/p>\n
    credentials   of   the   Petitioners   were   not   ascertained   at   thresh-hold   is <\/p>\n
    therefore   equally   erroneous.   The   arguments   about   the   genesis   of <\/p>\n
    litigation viz. whether the Petitioners behaved wrongfully with students <\/p>\n
    or then the students first filed police complaint against the petitioner <\/p>\n
    no.1 and as a protection from police, Petitioners made grievances about <\/p>\n
    structures of respondent no.5 by way of afterthought are all irrelevant <\/p>\n
    and  must yield to law and  public convenience.\n<\/p>\n
    19.          With   these   findings   other   objections   ,again   technical   in <\/p>\n
    nature raised by respondent no.5 need brief consideration. It is not the <\/p>\n
    case     of   respondent   no.5   that   students   or   activities   of   other   two <\/p>\n
    institutions located in the vicinity are also causing or may cause similar <\/p>\n
    nuisance   to   Petitioners.   If   they   wanted   to   bring   on   record   their <\/p>\n
    victimization at the instance of such other institutes, they ought to have <\/p>\n
    placed   requisite   details   giving   the   distance   and   location   etc.   to   show <\/p>\n
    ulterior motive impelling the Petitioners. However, overall consideration <\/p>\n
    of the matter gives us an impression that respondent no.5 is attempting <\/p>\n
    to raise all possible defenses in roving attitude to save its face. Person to <\/p>\n
    whom the lands belonged or then who applied to Gram Panchayat for <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:35 :::<\/span>
\n                                      86<\/span><\/p>\n
    sanction and in whose name plan was approved are not very relevant in <\/p>\n
    this background. Petitioners reside in same survey number in which the <\/p>\n
    last Hostel is constructed by respondent no.5. Hence and  looking to the <\/p>\n
    grievance made non-compliance with Order VII Rule 7 CPC is not fatal <\/p>\n
    at-least in this matter.\n<\/p>\n
    20.          Reliefs prayed for in PIL are thus granted in following terms.\n<\/p>\n
    The respondent no.6 Zilla Parishad, respondent no.4 Gram Panchayat as <\/p>\n
    also   respondent   no.3   Collector,   Wardha   and     respondent   no.3   Sub-\n<\/p>\n
    Divisional   Officer   to   forthwith   initiate   steps   for   removal   of   illegal <\/p>\n
    structures   raised   by   respondent   no.5   in   accordance   with   law.   During <\/p>\n
    pendency   of   such   action   and     time   taken   for   its   completion,   said <\/p>\n
    respondents are free to put seal on Hostel building erected on plot nos.\n<\/p>\n
    12 to 17 in layout in survey no.  56\/1 of Mouza Nalwadi forthwith.\n<\/p>\n
                   In addition, We also direct Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur <\/p>\n
    Division to :-\n<\/p>\n
           (1)To   hold   or   to   arrange   to   hold   enquiry   against   Shri   V.M.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               Jadhao, Deputy   C.E.O.\/Shri Manusmare and   the then chief <\/p>\n
               Executive Officer\/s of Zilla Parishad who have sworn affidavits <\/p>\n
               filed before this Court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:35 :::<\/span>
\n                              87<\/span><\/p>\n
     (2)To   find   out     concerned   Zilla   Parishad   CEO,   Councilor   or <\/p>\n
        Panchayat   members,   Gram   Panchayat   Members,   Sarpanch, <\/p>\n
        Secretary and  employees, and also why they did not detect or <\/p>\n
        report or act  against the unauthorized structures coming up at <\/p>\n
        Nalwadi.\n<\/p>\n
     (3)To find out concerned Revenue Officers and   employees like <\/p>\n
        Collector,   Sub-divisional   Officers,   Tahsildar’s,   Talathi’s, <\/p>\n
        Patwari’s etc. and   as to why they did not detect or report the <\/p>\n
        unauthorized structures coming up at Nalwadi.\n<\/p>\n
     (4)To initiate  steps   to prohibit repetition  of such illegalities in <\/p>\n
        area.\n<\/p>\n
     (5)To initiate or then arrange to initiate appropriate legal action <\/p>\n
        against   other   illegal   structures   which   may   have   come   up   or <\/p>\n
        coming up in the area.\n<\/p>\n
     (6)To submit list of all such  elected representatives and  Officer <\/p>\n
        bearers,   Officers,   Employees   of   all   these   Bodies,   Authorities <\/p>\n
        found prima-facie involved to this Court with nature of action<\/p>\n
        –disciplinary   as   also   for   disqualification,   proposed   to   be <\/p>\n
        undertaken   against   them.   Deaths,   Terminations   or <\/p>\n
        Retirements in the meanwhile, if any or expiry of period of 4 <\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:35 :::<\/span>
\n                              88<\/span><\/p>\n
        years   thereafter   shall   not   be   the   ground   for   excluding   any <\/p>\n
        name from such list.\n<\/p>\n
     (7)Office   of   Divisional   Commissioner,   Nagpur   to   complete <\/p>\n
        necessary   preliminary   investigation   within   3   months   and <\/p>\n
        report to be filed with Registrar(J) of this Court at Nagpur by <\/p>\n
        7\/12\/2011. Copy of said report be sent to Petitioner 1 and  2 <\/p>\n
        by Registered Post A\/D and affidavits be filed by respondent <\/p>\n
        no.1   accordingly   by   15\/12\/2011.   If   report   is   not   filed   by <\/p>\n
        07\/12\/2011,   Registrar(J)   to   list   matter   for   appropriate <\/p>\n
        cognizance. Petitioners can also approach if they do not receive <\/p>\n
        the preliminary report by 15\/12\/2011.\n<\/p>\n
     (8)State  Government,  Divisional  Commissioner  and       Collector, <\/p>\n
        Wardha   are     made   responsible   for   compliance   with   these <\/p>\n
        directions.\n<\/p>\n
     (9)As State Government as also Divisional Commissioner are not <\/p>\n
        party   Respondents,   Petitioners   to   bring   this   order   to   their <\/p>\n
        knowledge   by   serving   it   personally   and   by   Registered     post <\/p>\n
        acknowledgment due.\n<\/p>\n
     (10)Applications for extension of time to comply, if any, shall be <\/p>\n
        accompanied   by   the   steps   taken   to   show   the   vigilance   and <\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:35 :::<\/span>
\n                                     89<\/span><\/p>\n
               diligence in responsibility fastened.\n<\/p>\n
             (11)  State   Government   through   its   Rural   Development <\/p>\n
               Department   to   bring   this   order   to   the   notice   of   all   Gram <\/p>\n
               Panchayat Members\/Secretaries.\n<\/p>\n
    21.          We accordingly allow the Public Interest Litigation with costs <\/p>\n
    of Rs. 10,000\/- payable to Petitioners and   Rs. 10,000\/ – to Offices of <\/p>\n
    respondent no.1 to 3 by respondent no.5. Similarly respondent no.4 and <\/p>\n
    6 shall also pay Rs. 5000\/- respectively as costs to all Petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
                 JUDGE                                                 JUDGE\n   \n\n\n\n    Dragon\n\n\n\n     \n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                        ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:45:35 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Niraj Vikas Pabale vs The Tahsildar on 21 September, 2011 Bench: B. P. Dharmadhikari, P. D. Kode 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION No. 5680\/2007. 1. Niraj Vikas Pabale, Adult. 2. Jayant Ratnakar Gawande, Adult. 3. Ashis Ashokrao Chavan, Adult. 4. Pravin Manoharrao Page, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-113285","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nNiraj Vikas Pabale vs The Tahsildar on 21 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niraj-vikas-pabale-vs-the-tahsildar-on-21-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Niraj Vikas Pabale vs The Tahsildar on 21 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niraj-vikas-pabale-vs-the-tahsildar-on-21-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-20T01:37:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"89 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/niraj-vikas-pabale-vs-the-tahsildar-on-21-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/niraj-vikas-pabale-vs-the-tahsildar-on-21-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Niraj Vikas Pabale vs The Tahsildar on 21 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-20T01:37:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/niraj-vikas-pabale-vs-the-tahsildar-on-21-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":17628,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/niraj-vikas-pabale-vs-the-tahsildar-on-21-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/niraj-vikas-pabale-vs-the-tahsildar-on-21-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/niraj-vikas-pabale-vs-the-tahsildar-on-21-september-2011\",\"name\":\"Niraj Vikas Pabale vs The Tahsildar on 21 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-20T01:37:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/niraj-vikas-pabale-vs-the-tahsildar-on-21-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/niraj-vikas-pabale-vs-the-tahsildar-on-21-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/niraj-vikas-pabale-vs-the-tahsildar-on-21-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Niraj Vikas Pabale vs The Tahsildar on 21 September, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Niraj Vikas Pabale vs The Tahsildar on 21 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niraj-vikas-pabale-vs-the-tahsildar-on-21-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Niraj Vikas Pabale vs The Tahsildar on 21 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niraj-vikas-pabale-vs-the-tahsildar-on-21-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-20T01:37:40+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"89 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niraj-vikas-pabale-vs-the-tahsildar-on-21-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niraj-vikas-pabale-vs-the-tahsildar-on-21-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Niraj Vikas Pabale vs The Tahsildar on 21 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-20T01:37:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niraj-vikas-pabale-vs-the-tahsildar-on-21-september-2011"},"wordCount":17628,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niraj-vikas-pabale-vs-the-tahsildar-on-21-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niraj-vikas-pabale-vs-the-tahsildar-on-21-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niraj-vikas-pabale-vs-the-tahsildar-on-21-september-2011","name":"Niraj Vikas Pabale vs The Tahsildar on 21 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-20T01:37:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niraj-vikas-pabale-vs-the-tahsildar-on-21-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niraj-vikas-pabale-vs-the-tahsildar-on-21-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niraj-vikas-pabale-vs-the-tahsildar-on-21-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Niraj Vikas Pabale vs The Tahsildar on 21 September, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/113285","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=113285"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/113285\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=113285"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=113285"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=113285"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}