Bombay High Court
Sandeep Badriprasad Agrawal vs Union Of India, Thr. Ministry Of ... on 27 October, 2021
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil Laxman Pansare
5.pil28.2021.odt
1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 28 OF 2021
Sandeep Badriprasad Agrawal
Vs.
Union of India, Thru. Ministry of Housing and Urban Affair, New Delhi and others
__________________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
Ms. Radhika D. Raskar, Advocate for petitioner.
Ms. Ketki Joshi, GP for respondent/State.
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.
DATE : 27th OCTOBER, 2021.
Heard Ms. Raskar, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
2. It is gathered from the submissions that the
petitioner is a Social worker, who had filed Public
Interest Litigation in past being PIL No.40/2011, which
was disposed of by the judgment dated 15.01.2014
against the parties, who are respondents here except for
respondent No.4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the
decision of the Nagpur Improvement Trust, as reflected
in the Communication dated 27.02.2020 addressed to
the Managing Director of respondent No.4 to make
respondent No.4 pay compensation of
Rs.19,20,40,946/-, for loss of profit due to foreclosure of
5.pil28.2021.odt
the Amusement Park. The Amusement Park existed on
the land, which was handed over to the respondent
No.5 on BOT basis by the Nagpur Improvement Trust.
The contention of the petitioner is that the foreclosure
of the contract of development and management of the
the land handed over on BOT basis by respondent No.3
to respondent No.5 was entirely in between the
respondent No.3 and 5 and therefore, it ought to have
been sorted out in-between them only and respondent
No.4, could not have been asked to pay the
compensation to respondent No.5.
3. The further grievance is that the
Communication dated 27.02.2020 indicates that the
decision to call upon respondent No.4 to pay
compensation to respondent No.5 was made by High
Level Committee and when an information was sought
by the petitioner regarding the report of the High Level
Committee dated 20.01.2020 as mentioned in the
Communication dated 27.02.2020, the petitioner was
informed that the Committee under the Chairmanship of
the Divisional Commissioner did not send any report
whatsoever.
4. The further grievance is that public money is
being spent for a private purpose, enabling a private
5.pil28.2021.odt
operator like respondent No.5 to derive gains from out
of the public money, in an illegal manner.
5. Having considered the submissions and also
the documents referred to us which are part of the
petition, we are of the view that the grievances which
are raised in this petition, require consideration.
Therefore, issue notice to the respondents, returnable
after four weeks.
6. Ms. Ketki Joshi, learned GP waives service of
notice for respondent No.2.
7. We are informed by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that there is another petition challenging
the decision regarding payment of compensation of
Rs.19,20,40,946/- to the respondent No.5 as against the
original demand of Rs.162.12 Crores, filed by the
respondent No.5, which is pending with this Court.
8. That petition is Writ Petition No.2542/2020.
Let this petition be tagged along with Writ Petition
No.2542/2020.
JUDGE JUDGE
Prity
