Pariyavaran Saunvardhan Trust vs State Of Maharashtra And 2 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 12900 Bom

                                                                            8-pill-35465-2022.doc


                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                                   PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (L)NO.35468 OF 2022

                       Pariyavaran Saunvardhan Trust                   ..      Petitioner.
                             v/s.
                       State of Maharashtra
                       & Others                                        ..      Respondents.


                       Ms. M. S. Adenwala, for the Petitioner.
                       Smt.P. H. Kantharia, GP with Mr. Manish Upadhye, AGP, for Respondent
                       No.1-State.
                       Ms. Shilpa Redkar, for Respondent-MCGM.
          Digitally
          signed by
          SMITA
SMITA     RAJNIKANT
RAJNIKANT JOSHI
                                                        CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA, ACJ &
JOSHI     Date:
          2022.12.13
                                                                S.G.CHAPALGAONKAR,J.

10:46:02 +0530 DATED : 12th DECEMBER, 2022.

P.C:-

We have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The learned Counsel submits that the Apex Court in the case of Anjuman E. Shiate Ali & Another v/s. Gulmohar Area Society dated 17th April, 2020 had laid down directions to the Planning Authority. The Respondent- Planning Authority has not evolved system to implement the said judgment. The judgment of the Apex Court in case of Anjuman (supra), is the law of the land.

2 The learned Counsel further submits that open spaces that are laid in the approved lay out, have to be maintained in that manner and no constructions can be permitted in the said open spaces. The true intention of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Anjuman (supra) is not being adher to.

                       S.R.JOSHI                                                               1 of 2
                                                       8-pill-35465-2022.doc

3           There cannot be any dispute with proposition that the open

spaces, play grounds, gardens are the lungs of the City and they have to be maintained. Reduction in the area of open spaces and play grounds may not be permissible.

4 Upon perusal of the Petition, we do not find any instances specifying a particular open space, garden or a play-ground has been converted into a residential or a commercial complex or said area has been reduced.

5 The Petition is befit of such details. In absence of the necessary details, the PIL cannot be entertained.

6 In view of that, PIL is disposed of. No costs.

(S.G.CHAPALGAONKAR,J.)                         (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,ACJ.)




S.R.JOSHI                                                                2 of 2