Anil Murlidhar Wadpalliwar vs The State Of Maharashtra & Others
2017 Latest Caselaw 2974 Bom

                                1                                       wp5412.06




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                  

                           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


 WRIT PETITION NO. 5412 OF 2006


 Shri Anil Murlidhar Wadpalliwar, 
 Aged about 50 years, 
 Resident of Amrapralli Apartments,
 Plot No.38, New Ramdaspeth, Nagpur.                  ....       PETITIONER


                     VERSUS


 1) The State of Maharashtra,
     through Department of Urban 
     Development, Mantralaya, Madam 
     Cama Road, Mumbai-400 032.

 2) City of Nagpur Municipal Corporation,
     through the Municipal Commissioner, 
     having its office at Civil Lines, 
     Nagpur-440001.

 3) Nagpur Improvement Trust,
     through its Chairman, having its
     Office at Sadar, Nagpur.

 4) Deputy Director,
     Town Planning, Maharashtra State, 
     Nagpur, having its office at New 
     Administrative Building, Civil Lines,
     Nagpur - 440 001.

 5) Assistant Director,
     Town Planning, Nagpur Municipal 
     Corporation, Narang Towers, Palm Road,
     Civil Lines, Nagpur - 440 001.                   ....       RESPONDENTS




::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2017                 ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2017 00:24:40 :::
                                           2                                        wp5412.06




 ______________________________________________________________

                Shri A.A. Naik, Advocate for the petitioner, 
              Smt. K.S. Joshi, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 & 4,
          Shri S.M. Puranik, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 5,
    Shri S.K. Mishra with Shri R.O. Chhabra, Advocates for respondent
                                    No.3.
  ______________________________________________________________


                               CORAM :   B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND
                                         ROHIT B. DEO, JJ.

DATED : 08-06-2017

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

1. Heard Advocate Shri A.A. Naik for the petitioner, Assistant

Government Pleader Smt. K.S. Joshi for respondent Nos.1 and 4,

Advocate Shri S.M. Puranik for respondent Nos.2 and 5 and Advocate

Shri S.K. Mishra with Advocate Shri R.O. Chhabra for respondent No.3.

2. Prayer in the petition is to stop all constructions and

commercial activities on 27 roads mentioned in Regulation No.13.6.2

of Development Control Regulation, 2000 for Nagpur city. This Court

has on 20-11-2006 granted ad interim relief in terms of prayer clause

(G) thereby restraining respondents from permitting any construction

activity on these roads. This direction has been confirmed on

24-06-2008 while issuing Rule in the matter.

3 wp5412.06

3. Advocate Shri A.A. Naik has pointed out that the planning

authority in 2012 made an attempt to delete Regulation No.13.6.2 by

taking recourse to Section 37 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town

Planning Act, 1966. However, State Government then refused to look

into the matter because of pendency of present writ petition and

interim orders therein. He adds that proposal then kept pending has

been cleared on 19-10-2013 in exercise of powers under Section 37(1)

of the abovementioned Act.

4. After hearing respective counsel, we find that on

19-10-2013 Regulation No.13.6.2 has been deleted. As such

restrictions imposed thereby may not be operative. Advocate Shri

A.A. Naik, however, submits that considering the nature of power

exercised on 19-10-2013 and impact thereupon of pending writ

petition or interim orders operating therein, petitioner should be

granted leave and liberty to file appropriate challenge raising all

contentions. He adds that the hue and cry in the city about parking

space is because of deletion of this regulation.

4 wp5412.06

5. Respective counsel for respondents submit that after

deletion of said regulation, present writ petition is rendered

infructuous.

6. The Court has given ad interim relief, which was

confirmed and matter was admitted for final hearing. Today it has

been listed for final hearing. Because of pending of matter the State

Government had earlier refused to exercise its power. The proposal for

modification was kept pending and power appears to have been

exercised on 19-10-2013.

7. In this situation, challenge to the notification dated

19-10-2013 issued by Urban Development Department modifying the

Development Control Regulations has become necessary. We,

therefore, grant petitioner leave to file appropriate challenge raising all

contentions. The grounds raised in the present petition and defences

thereto are all kept open and can be looked into at appropriate

juncture if occasion therefor arises.

8. The communication dated 16-03-2012 and the notification

dated 19-10-2013 are taken on record as Exhibit "X" and Exhibit "Y"

5 wp5412.06

respectively. Thus keeping all contentions open and with liberty to

petitioner as mentioned supra, we dispose of the petition. No costs.

                                 JUDGE                          JUDGE

adgokar