{"id":159492,"date":"2011-02-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-02-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pragati-mahila-mandal-nanded-vs-municipal-council-nanded-ors-on-18-february-2011"},"modified":"2015-09-29T13:11:07","modified_gmt":"2015-09-29T07:41:07","slug":"pragati-mahila-mandal-nanded-vs-municipal-council-nanded-ors-on-18-february-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pragati-mahila-mandal-nanded-vs-municipal-council-nanded-ors-on-18-february-2011","title":{"rendered":"Pragati Mahila Mandal, Nanded vs Municipal Council, Nanded & Ors on 18 February, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Pragati Mahila Mandal, Nanded vs Municipal Council, Nanded & Ors on 18 February, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: ………………….J.<\/div>\n
Bench: Dalveer Bhandari, Deepak Verma<\/div>\n
                 REPORTABLE\n\n\n\n\n\n                 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n\n\n                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n                  CIVIL APPEAL No.2619 of 2002\n\n\n\n\n\nPRAGATI MAHILA MANDAL, NANDED                           ....Appellant\n\n \n\n                         Versus\n\n\n\nMUNICIPAL COUNCIL, NANDED & ORS.               ...Respondents\n\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n\n                                    \n\n\n\n                          J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
Deepak Verma, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.          How far whip of Public Interest Litigation can <\/p>\n
be   stretched   and   used   is   the   moot   and   foremost   question <\/p>\n
to   be   answered   in   this   Appeal,   arising   out   of   judgment <\/p>\n
and   order   dated   16\/17th  July,   2001   passed   by   Division <\/p>\n
Bench of the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at <\/p>\n
Aurangabad   in   W.P.   No.   925   of   1988   titled   as   Anil <\/p>\n
Tryambakarao   Kokil   (since   dead)   Vs.   Municipal   Council, <\/p>\n
Nanded and others.\n<\/p>\n
C.A.No.2619\/02 …. (contd.)<\/p>\n
                                    – 2 –\n<\/p>\n
2.              Appellant   herein   –   Pragati   Mahila   Mandal, <\/p>\n
Nanded   is   before   us   challenging   the   said   judgment   and <\/p>\n
order   passed   by   Division   Bench,   whereby   and   whereunder <\/p>\n
allotment   of   a   piece   of   plot   bearing   Survey   No.   42   of <\/p>\n
Village   Assadullabad   (Maganpura),   admeasuring   75’x   350′ <\/p>\n
in   its   favour   has   been   set   aside   and   quashed   as   being <\/p>\n
illegal   and   void   ab   initio,   with   further   direction   to <\/p>\n
Respondent   No.   1,   Municipal   Council,   Nanded   to   take <\/p>\n
possession   of   the   said   plot   together   with   building <\/p>\n
appurtenant thereto, within a period of eight weeks from <\/p>\n
the date of impugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n
          Thumb   nail   sketch   of   the   facts   of   the   case   is   as <\/p>\n
under:\n<\/p>\n
3.              Appellant is a Charitable Trust duly registered <\/p>\n
under the provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. On <\/p>\n
14.10.1983,   it   made   a   request   to   Respondent   No.   1 <\/p>\n
Municipal   Council,   Nanded   (now   Nanded   Waghela   City <\/p>\n
Municipal   Corporation)   for   allotment   of   a   plot,   out   of <\/p>\n
the   lands   belonging   to   it,   for   starting   a   school   to <\/p>\n
provide  education, especially for girls. Accordingly, in <\/p>\n
C.A.No.2619\/02 …. (contd.)<\/p>\n
                                   – 3 –\n<\/p>\n
the   year   1984,   the   Administrator,   who   was   then   holding <\/p>\n
the   charge   of   the   Municipal   Council,   vide   Resolution <\/p>\n
dated   22.10.1984   allotted   a   plot   admeasuring   75′   x   350′ <\/p>\n
bearing   Survey   No.   42   to   the   Appellant   on   a   60   years’ <\/p>\n
lease.\n<\/p>\n
4.              It   further   contemplated   that   the   applicable <\/p>\n
rental   compensation   shall   be   fixed   on   the   basis     of   the <\/p>\n
rate   to   be   worked   out   by   the   Assistant   Town   Planner, <\/p>\n
subject to compliance of the provisions of Section 92 of <\/p>\n
the  Maharashtra   Municipal  Councils,   Nagar  Panchayats   and <\/p>\n
Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (for short ‘The Act’). The <\/p>\n
Assistant Town Planner was also required to undertake the <\/p>\n
measurements and after fixing boundaries, the said piece <\/p>\n
of   plot   came   to   be   handed   over   to   the   Appellant   on <\/p>\n
25.10.1984,   after   drawing   a   possession   Panchanama.\n<\/p>\n
However,   at   that   time,   the   nominal   rental   compensation <\/p>\n
could   not   be   fixed   as   the   State   Government   was   yet   to <\/p>\n
grant sanction for transfer of the land in favour of the <\/p>\n
Appellant, as contemplated under Section 92 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
5.              Respondent  No.1,   the  Municipal   Council  then   in <\/p>\n
turn  submitted  a  proposal  to  the  Collector, seeking <\/p>\n
C.A.No.2619\/02 …. (contd.)<\/p>\n
                                       –  4  –\n<\/p>\n
sanction of the State Government regarding   allotment of <\/p>\n
the   aforesaid   plot   in   favour   of   the   Appellant.     The <\/p>\n
Assistant   Town   Planner   by   his   communication   dated <\/p>\n
5.6.1986           informed         Respondent         No.1         that         rental <\/p>\n
compensation   for   the   subject   plot   for   giving   it   on   long <\/p>\n
lease   of   60   years,   would   work   out   at   Rs.   6,816\/-   per <\/p>\n
annum.     A   representation   was   made   by   the   Appellant   for <\/p>\n
reduction of the rental to a reasonable sum, owing to it <\/p>\n
being a Charitable Trust, working mainly for the benefit <\/p>\n
of girls and women and it had no source of income to pay <\/p>\n
such   rental   compensation.     On   reconsideration   of   the <\/p>\n
matter,   the   rental   was   fixed   at   Rs.   11   per   annum   by   the <\/p>\n
Divisional Commissioner, vide his order dated 12.11.1986, <\/p>\n
wherein   sanction     was   granted   under   Section   92   of   the <\/p>\n
Act,   for   allotment   of   the   subject   plot   to   the   Appellant <\/p>\n
on a  lease for  60 years.   Thus,  it was  an  ex-post  facto <\/p>\n
sanction   granted   in   favour   of   the   Appellant,   after   the <\/p>\n
possession   of   the   plot   was   already   handed   over     to   the <\/p>\n
Appellant.     It   was   this   allotment   of   land   in   favour   of <\/p>\n
the   Appellant   and   also   other   allotments   made   by <\/p>\n
Respondent No.1  in  favour  of  other allottees together <\/p>\n
C.A.No.2619\/02 …. (contd.)<\/p>\n
                                          – 5 –\n<\/p>\n
with certain donations made by Respondent No.1, Municipal <\/p>\n
Council   that   were   the   subject   matter   of   challenge   in   a <\/p>\n
consolidated   writ   petition   filed   by     Anil   Tryambakarao <\/p>\n
Kokil (since dead) in the nature of pro bono publico.\n<\/p>\n
6. However,   it   appears   that   during   pendency   of   this   Writ <\/p>\n
    Petition,   the   sole   petitioner   Anil   Tryambakarao   Kokil <\/p>\n
    expired.   It   is   to   be   noted   here   that,   following   his <\/p>\n
    demise,           no         application            to          bring          the         Legal <\/p>\n
    Representatives   of   the   deceased   Petitioner   on   record <\/p>\n
    was preferred, before the hearing of the writ petition <\/p>\n
    could   commence.   Thereafter,   instead   of   directing   the <\/p>\n
    petition   to   have   abated   or   to   have   made   some <\/p>\n
    alternative                  arrangements                 (since              his          legal <\/p>\n
    representatives   were   not   brought   on   record)   to   ensure <\/p>\n
    that   some   other   public   spirited   person   to   be   brought <\/p>\n
    in   as   petitioner   to   prosecute   the   petition,   in   place <\/p>\n
    of   deceased   Anil   Tryambakarao   Kokil,   the   counsel   Mr. <\/p>\n
    S.C.   Bora,   who     probably   was   already   appearing   for <\/p>\n
    deceased   Writ   Petitioner,   was   appointed   as   Amicus <\/p>\n
    Curiae  and    was  directed  to  continue  to  prosecute  the <\/p>\n
    said   petition   in   that   capacity   of   Amicus   Curiae.   Thus <\/p>\n
    for   all   practical             purposes,        the        petition <\/p>\n
    continued   to  be<\/p>\n
C.A.No.2619\/02 …. (contd.)<\/p>\n
                                    – 6 –\n<\/p>\n
prosecuted   and   heard   even   when   admittedly   the   sole <\/p>\n
Petitioner Anil Tryambakarao Kokil had expired long time <\/p>\n
back.\n<\/p>\n
7.      Thus,   apart   from   examining   the            correctness, <\/p>\n
legality   and   propriety   of   the   impugned   order   passed   by <\/p>\n
Division   Bench,   it   is   also   necessary   to   examine   the <\/p>\n
effect   of   death   of   the   sole   petitioner   in   a   Public <\/p>\n
Interest   Litigation,   viz.,   whether   the   same   would   stand <\/p>\n
abated or can be allowed to be continued without bringing <\/p>\n
anyone else in place of the deceased petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
8.      The Division Bench had, vide its interim order dated <\/p>\n
16.1.2001,   considered   the   question   of   the   effect   of   the <\/p>\n
death   of   the   sole   petitioner   Anil   Tryambakrao   Kokil   on <\/p>\n
the Writ Petition, and whether anyone else is required to <\/p>\n
be   brought   in   his   place.   After   due   deliberation,   the <\/p>\n
Division Bench then appointed counsel for the petitioner <\/p>\n
who was already  appearing as Amicus Curiae, with further <\/p>\n
direction   to   allow   him   to   continue   the   petition.     Thus, <\/p>\n
there   was   change   of   status   of   the   counsel   for   deceased <\/p>\n
petitioner.   The   said   Order   dated   16.1.2001   reads   as <\/p>\n
under:\n<\/p>\n
C.A.No.2619\/02 …. (contd.)<\/p>\n
                                         – 7 –\n<\/p>\n
                    “This   is   a   public   interest   litigation <\/p>\n
            pertaining to the allotment of plots and shops <\/p>\n
            in   the   Nanded   City;   by   the   Municipal   Council, <\/p>\n
            Nanded.   However,   the   petitioner   has   expired <\/p>\n
            long back.  Nobody has come forward to agitate <\/p>\n
            the   cause   of   this   petition   further.     After <\/p>\n
            having   gone   through   the   petition,   this   Court <\/p>\n
            would   like   to   hear   the   parties   to   find   out <\/p>\n
            whether   there   is   any   substance   in   the <\/p>\n
            petition.\n<\/p>\n
                    Shri S.C. Bora, learned Advocate, who has <\/p>\n
            made   the   statement   that   the   petitioner   has <\/p>\n
            expired,   has   stated   that   this   Vakilpatra <\/p>\n
            ceases   to   be   effective.     However,     in   our <\/p>\n
            opinion,   it   is   necessary   to   appoint   Amicus <\/p>\n
            Curiae   so   as   to   assist   this   Court   to <\/p>\n
            understand   the   facts   of   the   case   and   to   find <\/p>\n
            out if any decision is required to be given in <\/p>\n
            the   matter.              Shri   Bora   is,   therefore, <\/p>\n
            appointed as Amicus Curiae in the matter.\n<\/p>\n
                    Shri M.V. Deshpande, learned Advocate for <\/p>\n
            the   Municipal   Council,   states   that   he   was <\/p>\n
            under the impression that since the petitioner <\/p>\n
            has   expired,   the   matter   will   not   be   heard <\/p>\n
            today.              The   learned   Advocates   for   other <\/p>\n
            respondents   also   state   that   they   require   more <\/p>\n
            time   for   getting   themselves   prepared   in   the <\/p>\n
            matter.\n<\/p>\n
                               S.O. to 6.2.2001.”\n<\/p>\n
9.      Perusal   thereof   does   not,   in   fact,   reflect   or   show <\/p>\n
as   to   for   what   reasons   and   under   what   circumstances   the <\/p>\n
Amicus Curiae was allowed to be relegated to the position <\/p>\n
of the petitioner, who  had admittedly died long <\/p>\n
C.A.No.2619\/02 …. (contd.)<\/p>\n
                                    – 8 –\n<\/p>\n
time back.   It is too well settled that no matter can be <\/p>\n
allowed   to   be   prosecuted   for   and   on   behalf   of   a   dead <\/p>\n
person   or   against   a   dead   party   but   it   is   also   no   doubt <\/p>\n
true   that   a   Public   Interest   Litigation,   which   generally <\/p>\n
raises an issue of general public importance, should not <\/p>\n
be   allowed   to   be   withdrawn   or   dismissed   on   technical <\/p>\n
grounds, if cognizance thereof has already been taken by <\/p>\n
the   Court.     But   an   important   issue   would   still   arise <\/p>\n
whether in case of death of a sole petitioner in a Public <\/p>\n
Interest Litigation, without bringing anyone else in his <\/p>\n
place,   if   the   petition   could   still   be   allowed   to   be <\/p>\n
prosecuted or continued?\n<\/p>\n
10.             The   concept   of   Public   Interest   Litigation   was <\/p>\n
introduced in Indian Legal System to help a person   or a <\/p>\n
class   of   persons   whose   legal   and   Constitutional   Rights <\/p>\n
are   violated     and   where   such   person   or   class   of   persons <\/p>\n
as the case may be, owing to their disadvantaged position <\/p>\n
such   as   poverty,   exploitation,   socially   and   economic <\/p>\n
backwardness   and   other   forms   of   disablement   etc.   is <\/p>\n
unable   to   approach   the   courts.   Under   the   aforesaid <\/p>\n
circumstances,  a  person or the  society could espouse a <\/p>\n
C.A.No.2619\/02 …. (contd.)<\/p>\n
                                   – 9 –\n<\/p>\n
common   grievance   by   filing   a   petition   under   Article   226 <\/p>\n
of   the   Constitution   of   India   in   the   High   Court   or   under <\/p>\n
Article   32   of   the   Constitution   of   India   in   the   Supreme <\/p>\n
Court.\n<\/p>\n
11.     According   to   Black’s   Law   Dictionary   –   “Public <\/p>\n
Interest   Litigation   means   a   legal   action   initiated   in   a <\/p>\n
court   of   law   for   the   enforcement   of   public   interest   or <\/p>\n
general   interest   in   which   the   public     or   class   of   the <\/p>\n
community   have   pecuniary   interest   or   some   interest   by <\/p>\n
which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.”\n<\/p>\n
12.     It is also well settled  that laws of procedure  are <\/p>\n
meant to regulate effectively, assist and aid the object <\/p>\n
of   doing   substantial   and   real   justice   and   not   to <\/p>\n
foreclose an adjudication on merits of substantial rights <\/p>\n
of citizens under personal, property or other laws.\n<\/p>\n
13.     Though,   the   courts   entertaining   PIL   enjoy   a   degree <\/p>\n
of flexibility unknown to the trial of traditional court <\/p>\n
litigation   but   the   procedure   to   be   adopted   by   it   should <\/p>\n
be known to the judicial tenets and adhere to established <\/p>\n
principles   of     a   judicial   procedure   employed   in   every <\/p>\n
judicial proceedings which constitute the basic <\/p>\n
C.A.No.2619\/02 …. (contd.)<\/p>\n
                                   – 10 –\n<\/p>\n
infrastructure   along   whose   channels   flows   the   power   of <\/p>\n
the court in the process of adjudication.   It would thus <\/p>\n
clearly   mean   that   the   courts   have   to,   in   the   normal <\/p>\n
course   of   business,   follow   traditional   procedural   law.\n<\/p>\n
However, minor deviations  are permissible here and there <\/p>\n
in order to do complete justice  between the parties.\n<\/p>\n
14.     Even   though,   we   made   fervent   search   to   find   out   a <\/p>\n
suitable answer to the questions posed hereinabove, from <\/p>\n
earlier   precedents   of   this   Court   but   it   appears   to   be   a <\/p>\n
unique   case.   Therefore,   in   our   wisdom,   we   thought   it <\/p>\n
appropriate to provide answer to the said question.\n<\/p>\n
15.     Before   proceeding   to   decide   the   said   issue,   it   is <\/p>\n
necessary   to   take   into   consideration   some   of   the <\/p>\n
provisions   of   the   Code   of   Civil   Procedure,   1908 <\/p>\n
(hereinafter shall be referred to as Code for short).\n<\/p>\n
                Section 141 of the Code, which creates a bar of <\/p>\n
applicability of the provisions of the Code to petitions <\/p>\n
filed   under   Article   226   of   the   Constitution   reads   as <\/p>\n
under:\n<\/p>\n
               “141.            Miscellaneous           proceedings-         The <\/p>\n
               procedure   provided   in   this   Code   in   regard <\/p>\n
               to  suit  shall  be followed, as far as it <\/p>\n
C.A.No.2619\/02 …. (contd.)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                                         – 11 –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n               can be made applicable, in all proceedings <\/p>\n
               in any Court of civil jurisdiction.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                                 [Explanation   –   In   this   section, <\/p>\n
               the         expression         “proceedings”          includes <\/p>\n
               proceedings   under   Order   IX,   but   does   not <\/p>\n
               include   any   proceeding   under   article   226 <\/p>\n
               of the Constitution.]”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                Explanation   which   has   been   added   in   the   Code <\/p>\n
with   effect   from   1.2.1977   makes   it   clear   that   the <\/p>\n
provisions   of   the   Code   do   not   specifically   apply   to   the <\/p>\n
proceedings   under   Article   226   of   the   Constitution   of <\/p>\n
India.\n<\/p>\n
                The   necessary   corollary   thereof   shall   be   that <\/p>\n
it   shall   be   open   to   the   Courts   to   apply   the   procedure <\/p>\n
provided   in   the   Code   to   any   proceeding   in   any   Court   of <\/p>\n
civil   jurisdiction   except   to   the   proceedings   under <\/p>\n
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
16.     Order   XXII,   Rule   4A   of   the   Code   prescribes   the <\/p>\n
procedure   where   there   is   no   legal   representative,   reads <\/p>\n
thus:\n<\/p>\n
             “Order XXII Rule 4A. Procedure where there is <\/p>\n
             no legal representative- <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             If, in any suit, it shall appear to the Court <\/p>\n
             that   any   party   who   has   died   during   the <\/p>\n
             pendency                   of         the          suit         has             no         legal <\/p>\n
             representative,   the   Court   may,   on   the <\/p>\n
             application  of   any   party  to  the  suit, <\/p>\n
C.A.No.2619\/02 …. (contd.)<\/p>\n
                                                     – 12 –\n<\/p>\n
             proceed               in         the          absence                of         a          person <\/p>\n
             representing   the   estate   of   the   deceased <\/p>\n
             person,            or         may         by         order             appoint                the <\/p>\n
             Administrator-General,   or   an   officer   of   the <\/p>\n
             Court   or   such   other   person   as   it   thinks   fit <\/p>\n
             to   represent   the   estate   of   the   deceased <\/p>\n
             person   for   the   purpose   of   the   suit;   and   any <\/p>\n
             judgment   or   order   subsequently   given   or   made <\/p>\n
             in   the   suit   shall   bind   the   estate   of   the <\/p>\n
             deceased   person   to   the   same   extent   as   he <\/p>\n
             would       have              been             bound         if         a         personal <\/p>\n
             representative   of   the   deceased   person   has <\/p>\n
             been a party to the suit.\n<\/p>\n
             2) Before making an order under this Rule, the <\/p>\n
                  Court –\n<\/p>\n
             a)       may   require   notice   of   the   application <\/p>\n
             for   the   order   to   be   given   to   such   (if     any) <\/p>\n
             of   the   persons   having   an   interest   in   the <\/p>\n
             estate   of   the   deceased   person   as   it   thinks <\/p>\n
             fit; and<\/p>\n
             b)       shall ascertain that the person proposed <\/p>\n
             to   be   appointed   to   represent   the     estate   of <\/p>\n
             the   deceased   person   is   willing   to   be   so <\/p>\n
             appointed   and   has   no     interest   adverse   to <\/p>\n
             that of the deceased person.”\n<\/p>\n
17.     Thus, even if it is held that Order 22 of the Code, <\/p>\n
which relates to the subject of ‘abatement of suits’, is <\/p>\n
not applicable to writ proceedings, it does not mean that <\/p>\n
death   of   the   petitioner   can   be   totally   ignored.   Looking <\/p>\n
to   the   nature   of   the   writ   proceedings,   as   initiated   by <\/p>\n
the   deceased   petitioner,   the   question   is   whether     the <\/p>\n
right  to  pursue  the  remedy  would  have <\/p>\n
C.A.No.2619\/02 …. (contd.)<\/p>\n
                                    – 13 –\n<\/p>\n
survived   despite   the   absence   of   any   person   on   record <\/p>\n
representing the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
18.     Under these circumstances, what would have been the <\/p>\n
best   option   open   to   the   court,   is   to   be   seen.   In   our <\/p>\n
considered opinion, the following options could have been <\/p>\n
exercised by the Court.\n<\/p>\n
19.     As   soon   as   the   information   is   received   that   a   sole <\/p>\n
petitioner     to   the   writ   petition   in   the   nature   of   a   PIL <\/p>\n
filed   pro bono publico, is dead, the Court  can issue a <\/p>\n
notice   through   newspapers   or   electronic   media   inviting <\/p>\n
public spirited bodies or persons to file applications to <\/p>\n
take   up   the   position   of   the   petitioner.   If   such   an <\/p>\n
application   is   filed,   the   court   can   examine   the <\/p>\n
antecedents   of   the   person   so   applying   and   find   out   if <\/p>\n
allowing him to be impleaded as petitioner could meet the <\/p>\n
ends of justice.\n<\/p>\n
20.     If the matter is already pending and the court is of <\/p>\n
the   opinion   that   the   relief   sought   could   be   granted   in <\/p>\n
the PIL, without having to take recourse to adversarial-\n<\/p>\n
style   of   proceedings,   then   it   can   proceed   further   as   if <\/p>\n
it had taken suo moto cognizance of the matter.\n<\/p>\n
C.A.No.2619\/02 …. (contd.)<\/p>\n
                                  – 14 –\n<\/p>\n
21.     The   court   can   still   examine   and   explore   the <\/p>\n
possibility, if any of the non-contesting Respondents of <\/p>\n
the   Writ   Petition   could   be   transposed   as   petitioner   as <\/p>\n
ultimately the relief would be granted to the said party <\/p>\n
only.  The court in a suitable case can ask any lawyer or <\/p>\n
any   other   individual   or   an   organisation   to   assist   the <\/p>\n
court   in   place   of   the   person   who   had   earlier   filed   the <\/p>\n
petition.\n<\/p>\n
22.     However, the fact situation of this case would show <\/p>\n
that   after   the   death   of   the   original   petitioner   Anil <\/p>\n
Tryambakarao   Kokil,   Respondent   No.1   Municipal   Council <\/p>\n
could   have   stepped   into   the   shoes   of   the   petitioner, <\/p>\n
albeit   on   a   limited   scale.   This   is   because,   while   the <\/p>\n
Writ   Petitioner   had   challenged   the   initial   allotment   of <\/p>\n
land   in   favour   of   the   Appellant   charitable   organization <\/p>\n
on   the   ground   that   it   was   made   in   contravention   of   the <\/p>\n
purpose   envisaged   in   the   Master   Plan,   Respondent   No.1 <\/p>\n
Nanded Municipal Council had emphasized on the subsequent <\/p>\n
unauthorized change in user of land by the Appellant. If <\/p>\n
we   were   to   cast   our   net   wider,   Sitaram   Maganlal   Shukla, <\/p>\n
(who was Respondent No. 12 in the Writ Petition), could <\/p>\n
C.A.No.2619\/02 …. (contd.)<\/p>\n
                                  – 15 –\n<\/p>\n
also have been transposed as a Petitioner because he too, <\/p>\n
had a similar grievance against the Respondent Municipal <\/p>\n
Council   as   that   of   the   original   deceased   petitioner.   It <\/p>\n
has   been   brought   to   our   notice   that   the   said   Sitaram <\/p>\n
Maganlal Shukla also had passed away during the pendency <\/p>\n
of   the   Writ   Proceedings   –   however,   in   his   own   Second <\/p>\n
Appeal   No.   30   of   2000,   he   had   been   represented   through <\/p>\n
his   Legal   Representative.   So,   the   impleadment   of   that <\/p>\n
Legal Representative as the Petitioner in this PIL would <\/p>\n
have   been   sufficient   for   continuance   of   proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
Since   the   petition   before   the   High   Court   was   in   the <\/p>\n
nature   of   a   PIL,   it   is   immaterial   that   the   respective <\/p>\n
causes   of   action   urged   by   the   Writ   Petitioner   and <\/p>\n
Respondent   No.   12   have   their   foundations   in   different <\/p>\n
sets of legal argument, as the main relief sought is the <\/p>\n
same,   i.e.   quashing   of   the   allotment   order   in   favour   of <\/p>\n
the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
23.     At any rate, in cases like the above, where the main <\/p>\n
Writ Petitioner has passed away and any other person (not <\/p>\n
being   a   representative   of   the   deceased)   is   brought   on <\/p>\n
record, either from the opposite side or from a third <\/p>\n
C.A.No.2619\/02 …. (contd.)<\/p>\n
                                    – 16 –\n<\/p>\n
party,   the   court   may,   after   having   received   an <\/p>\n
application requesting for permission for the same, grant <\/p>\n
opportunity   to   the   newly   added   petitioners   to   amend   the <\/p>\n
petition, if they so desire.\n<\/p>\n
24.     In these circumstances, Court could have taken a suo <\/p>\n
moto   cognizance   of   the   averments   made   in   the   petition, <\/p>\n
despite death of original petitioner, by asigning reasons <\/p>\n
and could have continued to bring it to a logical end, so <\/p>\n
as to meet the ends of justice.\n<\/p>\n
25.     In   this   view   of   the   matter,   reasoning   of   the   Court <\/p>\n
in this regard cannot be legally upheld nor we can put a <\/p>\n
seal   of   approval   to   such   a   procedure   as   the   same   would <\/p>\n
lead to an anomalous situation not akin to law.\n<\/p>\n
26.     Now,   coming   to   the   merits   of   the   matter,   few   facts <\/p>\n
material   for   deciding   have   already   been   mentioned <\/p>\n
hereinabove     but   we   have   to   decide   whether   the   Division <\/p>\n
Bench in the impugned judgment was justified in quashing <\/p>\n
the allotment made in favour of the Appellant or not.\n<\/p>\n
27.     It   is   pertinent   to   point   out   here   that   the <\/p>\n
aforementioned Sitaram Maganlal Shukla  had filed a civil <\/p>\n
suit for cancellation of the lease granted in favour of <\/p>\n
C.A.No.2619\/02 …. (contd.)<\/p>\n
                                  – 17 –\n<\/p>\n
the Appellant. Ultimately,  matter was carried up to this <\/p>\n
Court.   The   said   suit   was   dismissed.   An   SLP   (c) <\/p>\n
No.16517\/2007   against   the   judgment   and   order   dated <\/p>\n
15.6.2007   passed   in   Second   Appeal   No.   30   of   2000   of   the <\/p>\n
High   Court   of   Bombay,   Bench   at   Aurangabad   was   filed <\/p>\n
before   this   Court.     However,   on   21.9.2007   the   said   SLP <\/p>\n
was   dismissed   as   withdrawn.     Thus,   in   any   case,   the <\/p>\n
question   of     legality   of   the   allotment   of   the   subject <\/p>\n
piece   of   land   in   favour   of   the   Appellant,   had   attained <\/p>\n
finality   at   the   High   Court   stage,   even   though   at   the <\/p>\n
instance of some other person.\n<\/p>\n
28.     In   the   aforesaid   suit   filed   by     Sitaram   Maganlal <\/p>\n
Shukla,   who   was   the   plaintiff   therein,   the   Municipal <\/p>\n
Council   was   arrayed   as   defendant   No.2   in   which   it   had <\/p>\n
filed its written statement giving reasons for allotment <\/p>\n
of   piece   of   plot   in   favour   of   the   Appellant.     It   was <\/p>\n
categorically   mentioned   in   the   same   that   Divisional <\/p>\n
Commissioner   had   accorded   sanction   to   the   said   transfer <\/p>\n
of plot by its letter dated 12.11.1986.  Accordingly, the <\/p>\n
Appellant had started the construction of its building to <\/p>\n
be used for the hostel for girls and working women.\n<\/p>\n
C.A.No.2619\/02 …. (contd.)<\/p>\n
                                  – 18 –\n<\/p>\n
Similarly, all other Respondents had fully supported the <\/p>\n
allotment of plot in favour of the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
29.     In the Writ Petition No. 925 of 1988, Respondent No. <\/p>\n
1   has   submitted   that   the   reservations   of   the   land   in <\/p>\n
survey No. 42 and Survey No. 29 for the establishment of <\/p>\n
a   primary   school   near   the   open   space   in   the   revised <\/p>\n
layout was not under the master plan.  It was development <\/p>\n
plan   submitted   by   the   owner   of   these   two   lands   under <\/p>\n
Section 44 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning <\/p>\n
Act   of   1966     and   those   two   reservations   are   as   per   the <\/p>\n
tentative   development   plan   formulated   by   the   Municipal <\/p>\n
Council   as   a   planning   authority.              This   plan   was <\/p>\n
sanctioned before 1972.  The owner of the land was not in <\/p>\n
a   position   to   finance   the   construction   of   a     primary <\/p>\n
school.     In   this     background,   Appellant   –   Trust   came <\/p>\n
forward with the offer to establish primary school as per <\/p>\n
the   revised   development   plan   with   the   consent   of   the <\/p>\n
owner.\n<\/p>\n
30.     It   is   pertinent   to   point   out     the   affidavit   of <\/p>\n
Collector,   Nanded   in   the   Writ   Petition.                             He   has <\/p>\n
categorically averred that the said plot was reserved to <\/p>\n
C.A.No.2619\/02 …. (contd.)<\/p>\n
                                    – 19 –\n<\/p>\n
be allotted on the lease basis for 60 years and the main <\/p>\n
object   of   the   Appellant,   Pragati   Mahila   Mandal,   Nanded <\/p>\n
is   to   conduct   educational   activities   for   girls.\n<\/p>\n
Assistant   Director   of   Town   Planning   had   also   issued   no <\/p>\n
objection   certificate   for   the   allotment   of   plot   to   the <\/p>\n
above institution. He has also referred to Rule 21 of the <\/p>\n
Maharashtra             Municipalities         (Transfer         of         Immovable <\/p>\n
property)   Rules,   1983   under   which   the   Municipal   Council <\/p>\n
is   bestowed   with   the   powers   of   sanction   of   government <\/p>\n
grant of the land on the basis of lease for promotion of <\/p>\n
educational,   medical,   religious,   social   and   charitable <\/p>\n
purposes   to   the   registered   institutions   on   payment   of <\/p>\n
such   concessional   premium   as   the   council   may,   in   its <\/p>\n
discretion, determine.\n<\/p>\n
31.     The   Chief   Officer   of   Nanded   Municipal   Council, <\/p>\n
Nanded   had   also   submitted   his   affidavit   in   reply   to   the <\/p>\n
Writ   Petition   and   assigned   various   valid   and   cogent <\/p>\n
reasons for allotment of plot to the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
32.     In   the   reply   affidavit   of   Kiran   Kurundkar   dated <\/p>\n
30.6.2001, the then Commissioner  of the Nanded – Waghela <\/p>\n
Municipal Corporation, it  has categorically been stated <\/p>\n
C.A.No.2619\/02 …. (contd.)<\/p>\n
                                  – 20 –\n<\/p>\n
that   on   3.1.1978,   the   first   development   plan   of   Nanded <\/p>\n
city was sanctioned   by the Government in which the said <\/p>\n
plot   was   shown   and   included   in   the   Development   plan   for <\/p>\n
public   and   semi   public   purposes   and   was   not   shown   or <\/p>\n
included as land reserved exclusively for primary school.\n<\/p>\n
Thus,   only   after   land   user   was   changed,   admittedly   the <\/p>\n
Appellant   is   using   it   for   the   said   purposes   ie.   Public <\/p>\n
and   semi   public   use,   which   fact   has   not   been   denied   by <\/p>\n
Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
33.     However, as has been mentioned earlier, for want of <\/p>\n
money   and     financial   crunch,     the   school   for   which   the <\/p>\n
land was initially acquired by the Appellant could not be <\/p>\n
started.   So,   it   constructed   a   hostel   for   working   women <\/p>\n
and   girls   taking   higher   education.             There   is   one <\/p>\n
auditorium also which is being used as family counselling <\/p>\n
centre.\n<\/p>\n
34.It   has   neither   been   disputed   before   us   nor   anything <\/p>\n
    could   be   brought   on   record   to   show   that   Appellant   is <\/p>\n
    running   the   said   hostel   for   any   gains   or   profit.     In <\/p>\n
    fact,   it   is   run   on   no   profit-no   loss   basis.     This   is <\/p>\n
    manifest from the details of the list of students<\/p>\n
C.A.No.2619\/02 …. (contd.)<\/p>\n
                                    – 21 –\n<\/p>\n
who   have   been   pursuing   various   courses   for   higher <\/p>\n
education   since   the   year   1991   to   the   year   2000.     It <\/p>\n
largely discloses the names of the students, the courses <\/p>\n
for   which   they   had   opted   and   the   colleges   of   enrolment.\n<\/p>\n
It also shows that initially room rent was only Rs. 150\/-\n<\/p>\n
which   was   enhanced   to   Rs.   400\/-   in   the   year   2000.     Most <\/p>\n
of   the   inmates   were   students     and   only   handful   of   them <\/p>\n
were   working   women.     We   have   been   given   to   understand <\/p>\n
that   as   of   today,   it   is   charging     only   Rs.   750\/-   per <\/p>\n
month from each of the students occupying the room.   The <\/p>\n
accounts   of   the   Appellant   are   duly   audited   and   reflect <\/p>\n
absolute   transparency.     There   is   no   reason   to   doubt   the <\/p>\n
correctness thereof.\n<\/p>\n
35.     It   is     a   matter   of   common   knowledge   that   girls   and <\/p>\n
women face lot of problems and difficulties in finding a <\/p>\n
suitable   and     safe   accommodation   when   they   go   out   of <\/p>\n
their   own   cities,           to   their   respective   schools   or <\/p>\n
colleges or work-place.  If a hostel has been constructed <\/p>\n
for girls and working women, then it would definitely be <\/p>\n
for   public   or   semi   public   purpose   and   it   cannot   be   said <\/p>\n
that  there  has been any deviation from the purposes for <\/p>\n
C.A.No.2619\/02 …. (contd.)<\/p>\n
                                    – 22 –\n<\/p>\n
which   the   said   plot   was   earmarked   and   allotted   to   the <\/p>\n
Appellant. It is commendable that the Appellant has taken <\/p>\n
the   initiative   of   introducing   progressive   elements <\/p>\n
(through   the   establishment   of   counselling   centres),   in <\/p>\n
its   efforts   to   alleviate   some   primary   concerns   of   most <\/p>\n
working   women.     It   would   be   nothing   short   of   a   cruel <\/p>\n
twist   of   justice,   if   they   are   prevented   from   continuing <\/p>\n
to   do   so   by   a   PIL,   which   is   motivated   by   ulterior <\/p>\n
motives.\n<\/p>\n
36.     In   this   regard,   it   is   further   necessary   to   mention <\/p>\n
that   the   provisions   of   Memorandum   of   Association   of   the <\/p>\n
Appellant clearly state that one of the objectives of the <\/p>\n
Appellant is to provide Hostel   facilities for girls and <\/p>\n
working   women.     This   further   fortifies   the   stand   of   the <\/p>\n
Appellant   that   it   is   public   or   at   least   semi-public <\/p>\n
purpose.\n<\/p>\n
37.     Thus, looking to the matter from all angles, we are <\/p>\n
of   the   considered   opinion   that   impugned   judgment   and <\/p>\n
order passed by the Division Bench cannot be sustained in <\/p>\n
law.  It  deserves  to  be  set  aside  and  quashed.  We <\/p>\n
C.A.No.2619\/02 …. (contd.)<\/p>\n
                                      – 23 –\n<\/p>\n
accordingly   do   so.     The   appeal   is   accordingly   hereby <\/p>\n
allowed.\n<\/p>\n
                Parties   are   directed   to   bear   their   own <\/p>\n
respective costs.\n<\/p>\n
………………….J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                  [DALVEER BHANDARI]<\/p>\n
                                                  ………………….\n<\/p>\n
J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                  [DEEPAK VERMA]<\/p>\n
February 18, 2011<\/p>\n
New Delhi.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Pragati Mahila Mandal, Nanded vs Municipal Council, Nanded & Ors on 18 February, 2011 Author: ………………….J. Bench: Dalveer Bhandari, Deepak Verma REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2619 of 2002 PRAGATI MAHILA MANDAL, NANDED ….Appellant Versus MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, NANDED & ORS. …Respondents J U D […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-159492","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nPragati Mahila Mandal, Nanded vs Municipal Council, Nanded & Ors on 18 February, 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\/pragati-mahila-mandal-nanded-vs-municipal-council-nanded-ors-on-18-february-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pragati Mahila Mandal, Nanded vs Municipal Council, Nanded & Ors on 18 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pragati-mahila-mandal-nanded-vs-municipal-council-nanded-ors-on-18-february-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=\"2011-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-29T07:41:07+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=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pragati-mahila-mandal-nanded-vs-municipal-council-nanded-ors-on-18-february-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pragati-mahila-mandal-nanded-vs-municipal-council-nanded-ors-on-18-february-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pragati Mahila Mandal, Nanded vs Municipal Council, Nanded & Ors on 18 February, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-29T07:41:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pragati-mahila-mandal-nanded-vs-municipal-council-nanded-ors-on-18-february-2011\"},\"wordCount\":4126,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pragati-mahila-mandal-nanded-vs-municipal-council-nanded-ors-on-18-february-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pragati-mahila-mandal-nanded-vs-municipal-council-nanded-ors-on-18-february-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pragati-mahila-mandal-nanded-vs-municipal-council-nanded-ors-on-18-february-2011\",\"name\":\"Pragati Mahila Mandal, Nanded vs Municipal Council, Nanded & Ors on 18 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-29T07:41:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pragati-mahila-mandal-nanded-vs-municipal-council-nanded-ors-on-18-february-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pragati-mahila-mandal-nanded-vs-municipal-council-nanded-ors-on-18-february-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pragati-mahila-mandal-nanded-vs-municipal-council-nanded-ors-on-18-february-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pragati Mahila Mandal, Nanded vs Municipal Council, Nanded & Ors on 18 February, 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":"Pragati Mahila Mandal, Nanded vs Municipal Council, Nanded & Ors on 18 February, 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\/pragati-mahila-mandal-nanded-vs-municipal-council-nanded-ors-on-18-february-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pragati Mahila Mandal, Nanded vs Municipal Council, Nanded & Ors on 18 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pragati-mahila-mandal-nanded-vs-municipal-council-nanded-ors-on-18-february-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-29T07:41:07+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":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pragati-mahila-mandal-nanded-vs-municipal-council-nanded-ors-on-18-february-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pragati-mahila-mandal-nanded-vs-municipal-council-nanded-ors-on-18-february-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pragati Mahila Mandal, Nanded vs Municipal Council, Nanded & Ors on 18 February, 2011","datePublished":"2011-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-29T07:41:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pragati-mahila-mandal-nanded-vs-municipal-council-nanded-ors-on-18-february-2011"},"wordCount":4126,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pragati-mahila-mandal-nanded-vs-municipal-council-nanded-ors-on-18-february-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pragati-mahila-mandal-nanded-vs-municipal-council-nanded-ors-on-18-february-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pragati-mahila-mandal-nanded-vs-municipal-council-nanded-ors-on-18-february-2011","name":"Pragati Mahila Mandal, Nanded vs Municipal Council, Nanded & Ors on 18 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-29T07:41:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pragati-mahila-mandal-nanded-vs-municipal-council-nanded-ors-on-18-february-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pragati-mahila-mandal-nanded-vs-municipal-council-nanded-ors-on-18-february-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pragati-mahila-mandal-nanded-vs-municipal-council-nanded-ors-on-18-february-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pragati Mahila Mandal, Nanded vs Municipal Council, Nanded & Ors on 18 February, 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\/159492","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=159492"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/159492\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=159492"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=159492"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=159492"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}