Bombay High Court
Vijay Bhagwanswarup ... vs State Of Mah & Others on 29 April, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
wp1802.05 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1802 OF 2005
1. Vijay s/o Bhagwanswarup Mathur
aged about 53 years, occupation -
Service, r/o Vikram Apartments,
Plot No. 16, Surendra Nagar,
West High Court Road, Nagpur.
2. Shubhangi w/o Vivek Kashyap,
aged about 37 years, occupation -
Housewife, r/o Vikram Apartments,
Plot No. 16, Surendra Nagar,
West High Court Road, Nagpur.
3. Mrs. Kiran w/o Sanjeev Deo,
aged about 47 years, occupation -
Housewife, r/o Vikram Apartments,
Plot No. 16, Surendra Nagar,
West High Court Road, Nagpur.
4. Shri Shyam Joshi,
aged about 38 years, occupation -
Chartered Accountant, r/o Vikram
Apartments, Plot No. 16,
Surendra Nagar, West High Court
Road, Nagpur.
5. Mrs. T.V. Shivkami w/o V.
Parthasarthy, aged 52 years,
occupation - Service, r/o Vikram
Apartments, Plot No. 16,
Surendra Nagar, West High
Court Road, Nagpur.
6. Shri Nana Telang,
aged about 55 years, occupation -
Service, r/o Vikram Apartments,
Plot No. 16, Surendra Nagar,
West High Court Road, Nagpur.
7. Moreshwar s/o Gopalrao Kale,
::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:15:19 :::
wp1802.05 2
aged about 42 years, occupation -
Business, r/o Plot No. 8,
Surendra Nagar, Nagpur.
8. Prafulla Raut,
aged about 42 years, occupation -
Business, r/o Plot No. 9,
Surendra Nagar, Nagpur. ... PETITIONERS
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Urban
Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
2. Nagpur Municipal Corporation,
thr. its Commissioner, Civil Lines,
Nagpur.
3. The Health Officer,
Nagpur Municipal Corporation,
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer,
Town Planning Department,
Nagpur Municipal Corporation,
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
5. Nagpur Improvement Trust,
through its Chairman, Sadar,
Nagpur.
6. The Commissioner of Police,
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
7. The Collector,
having office at Civil Lines,
Nagpur.
8. The Chief Controller of Explosives
C.G.O. Complex, Seminary Hills,
Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:15:19 :::
wp1802.05 3
9. Indian Oil Corporation,
thr. its Area Sales Manager,
Ramdaspeth, Nagpur.
10.Shri Sudhir s/o Dinesh Gajbhiye,
aged 31 years, occupation -
Business, r/o 7, Bhagirath Villa,
Seminary Hills, Nagpur. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri B.G. Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mrs. A.R. Taiwade, AGP for respondent Nos. 1, 6 & 7.
Shri R.B. Chhabra, Advocate for respondent No. 5.
Shri Chandurkar, Advocate for respondent No. 8.
.....
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.
APRIL 29, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
Heard Shri Kulkarni, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Mrs. Taiwade, AGP for respondent Nos. 1, 6 & 7, Shri
R.B. Chhabra, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 and Shri
Chandurkar, learned counsel for respondent No. 8. Nobody has
appeared for other respondents.
2. The petitioners, who are residents of residential
area, located at Plot No. 15, Surendra Nagar, West High Court
Road, Nagpur, question the permission granted to Respondent
No. 10 to start a retail outlet (Petrol pump) in residential
locality.
3. After hearing respective counsel, we find that in
return filed by Respondent No. 7 - Collector, in paragraph 3,
position has been clarified. Attention has been invited to
Government Resolution (revised) dated 09.04.2001, which
classifies land and permits certain users. Regulation No. 14.2
and Appendix 'M' therewith specifically permits starting of
petrol pump on the land. Perusal of said provision which is
placed along with the petition as Annexure 'B' reveals that size
of plot cannot be more than 1100 sq. meters and it has to be on
a road having width of 12 meters and above. Not more than 9
persons can be employed on such pump.
4. At Annexure 'A' along with the petition, a lay out
plan showing West High Court Road, abutting residential area
and plot in question has also been shown. The petitioners do
not dispute that a plot satisfies above mentioned stipulations.
5. The Petrol Pump has come up in the year 2004 and
as such we find the challenge misconceived.
6. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. Rule
discharged. However, in the facts and circumstances of the
case, there shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE
ig JUDGE
******
*GS.
