Bombay High Court
Pride Ventures India Pvt Ltd Through ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 22 September, 2025
Author: Nitin B. Suryawanshi
Bench: Nitin B. Suryawanshi
2025:BHC-AUG:25670-DB
{1} cripli9-22.doc
drp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.9 OF 2022
Mahesh Ramchandra Kanade PETITIONER
Age - 58 years, Occ - Advocate
R/o "Parakram", Jaisingpura, Aurangabad
Taluka & District - Aurangabad
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTS
Through its Principal Secretary
Urban Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2. The Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad
Taluka and District - Aurangabad
3. The District Collector
Aurangabad
4. The Commissioner of Police
Aurangabad
5. Pride Ventures Private Limited
Through its Director
Nitin Venuprasad Bagdiya
Age - 51 years, Occ - Business
R/o Railway Station, Aurangabad
6. Rameshchandra Pannalal Vakil
Age - Major, Occ - Business
R/o Pannalal Nagar, Aurangabad
7. Ravindrachandra Pannalal Vakil
Age - Major, Occ - Business
R/o As above
8. Maheshchanra Sureshchandra Vakil
Age - Major, Occ - Business
R/o As above
{2} cripli9-22.doc
.......
Mr. B. L. Sagar Killarikar, h/f Mr. N. T. Tribhuvan, Advocate for
Petitioner
Mr. N. S. Tekale, APP for Respondent - State
Mr. A. P. Bhandari, Advocate for Respondent No.2
Mr. P. R. Katneshwarkar, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. V. A. Bagdiya,
Advocate for Respondent No.5
Miss P. S. Anjan h/f Mr. G. K. Naik Thigle, Advocate for
Respondents No.7 and 8
.......
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2933 OF 2025
Pride Ventures India Private Limited, Through APPLICANT
its Director, Nitin Venuprasad Bagdiya
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and Others RESPONDENTS
.......
Mr. P. R. Katneshwarkar, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. V. A. Bagdiya,
Advocate for Applicant
Mr. N. S. Tekale, APP for Respondent - State
Mr. A. P. Bhandari, Advocate for Respondent No.2
Mr. B. L. Sagar Killarikar, h/f Mr. N. T. Tribhuvan, Advocate for
Respondent No.5
Miss P. S. Anjan h/f Mr. G. K. Naik Thigle, Advocate for
Respondents No.6 and 8
.......
[CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, &
SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. J.]
RESERVED ON : 21st AUGUST, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2025
{3} cripli9-22.doc
JUDGMENT (PER NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.):
1. This Criminal Public Interest Litigation is filed for following
relief:
"C. By issuing writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ
order or direction in the like nature, this Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to direct the respondent authorities to conduct an inquiry in
respect of submission of false documents by the respondent nos. 5 to 8
and officer of respondent no.2 in respect of permission no. 998 and 7
for CTS no. 14813/118 situated at Pannalal Nagar, Aurangabad and
in respect of submission of fabricated documents by them and
thereafter to register an offence against the respondent nos. 5 to 8
and all concerns and for that purpose issue necessary orders."
2. The Petitioner, who is a practicing lawyer, has filed present
Criminal Public Interest Litigation contending that, Respondents
No. 5 to 8 obtained construction permission No. 406/2005 dated
3rd December, 2005, however, no construction was carried out on
Plot bearing CTS No.14813/118, situated at Pannalal Nagar,
Aurangabad (hereinafter will be referred as "said property"). As
per Section 48 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act,
the permission is required to be renewed every year, which is
valid up to 3 years and thereafter, it lapses. Respondents No.5 to
8 filed application before the Town Planning Department of
Respondent No.2 Municipal Corporation, seeking construction
permission in respect of the said property and Respondent No.2,
{4} cripli9-22.doc
without following due process of law and guidelines issued by the
Government from time to time, issued construction permission
No. 998/17-18, on 1st March, 2018.
3. Respondents No.5 to 8 again filed Application seeking
revision in construction permission and the authorities of the
Municipal Corporation issued revised permission No. 07/20-21 on
14th May, 2020.
4. According to the Petitioner, since the area of construction is
5644.40 square meter, in view of the provisions of Government
notification dated 8th November, 2013, 20% of the total plot area
is required to be kept for MHADA, however, ignoring this
notification, the Authorities have held that since the earlier
permission was granted in the year 2005, therefore, provisions of
notification dated 8th November, 2013 are not applicable. The
Petitioner further contends that it is mentioned in the inspection
report of the concerned engineer, in the year 2018 that, the plot
was open plot and there is no construction. The construction
permission is given on the basis of measurement map prepared
by the Taluka Inspector of Land Records and it is prepared on the
basis of information given by the land owners and at their
instance i.e. Respondents No.5 to 8.
5. The Petitioner claims that incorrect map is prepared, which
{5} cripli9-22.doc
is against development plan sanctioned by the Government. The
Petitioner has further contended that, the concerned Engineer
has shown that there are minor modifications in the reservation
of the land for school and some area is converted into residential
area from the portion of the said property. As per Government
notification dated 29th May, 2004 0.10 Hectare area is deleted
from site No. 248 primary school. As per certified copy of the DP
plan, given to the Petitioner, deleted area comes to 1375 square
meters that means 375 square meter excess land is shown to be
deleted in the DP plan. Therefore, 375 Square Meter land is
grabbed by Respondents No.5 to 8 in collusion with Officers of
the Town Planning Department of the Municipal Corporation.
6. The Petitioner further contends that, while granting
construction permission in the year 2005, the then Engineer had
specifically mentioned in the Inspection Report at para 18 that,
towards east side of the said property, there is nala and there
should not be any obstruction to the flow of the said nala and the
owner must obtain permission from the concerned Department
before seeking construction permission. Respondents No. 5 to 8
have not obtained any permission from the concerned
department and without seeking permission, width of the nala is
shifted. As per section 20 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue
Code, Nala belongs to the State Government and, therefore, for
{6} cripli9-22.doc
any permission in respect of Nala for construction, permission of
the State Government is necessary.
7. According to the Petitioner, as per building bye laws,
construction is not permissible within 6 meter from the edge of
water mark of nala, but from the permission granted to
Respondents No.5 to 8, it is clear that construction of building
"C" is not permissible and the amenities shown in the plan,
including swimming pool are not permissible. The Petitioner filed
a detail Application / Representation to Respondent No.2 -
Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation and prayed for
cancellation of commencement certificate issued in the year
2018 and revised in 2020 in favour of Respondents No. 5 to 8
and also requested to register an offence against Respondents
No.5 to 8 and all the concerned for grabbing the land and
preparation of false documents.
8. The Petitioner had submitted representation dated 10 th
August, 2021 to the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation
making allegations made in the PIL. It is, therefore, submitted
that, before seeking writ of mandamus, the Petitioner has
approached the concerned authorities. According to the
Petitioner, the revised permission is illegal and the same is given
by circumventing the mandatory condition of notification dated
{7} cripli9-22.doc
8th November, 2013, which mandates 20% of net plot area to be
provided for construction to Economical Weaker Section / Lower
Income Group tenements, which area has to be handed over to
MHADA at the land rate in the annual statement of the land
prepared by the Inspector General of Registration of Maharashtra
State.
9. On behalf of Respondent No.2, Deputy Director, Town
Planning, Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad has filed reply
affidavit, stating that, this Criminal Public Interest Litigation is
filed without doing any research. Since the Petitioner has given
up challenge to the commencement certificate dated 1 st March,
2018 and revised permission dated 14 th May, 2020, the Petitioner
is not entitled to make any grievance regarding grant of
permission by the Corporation and on this ground alone, the
Criminal Public Interest Litigation is liable to be dismissed. It is
averred that, by notification dated 25th May, 2004, reservation of
primary school is deleted. Since the Petitioner is making
grievance regarding deletion of reservation, after lapse of 18
years, the same may not be entertained. It is also clarified that
the area stated in the development plan is shown in the
indicative map and the same is required to be measured by the
authorities of the land records department.
{8} cripli9-22.doc
10. So far as contention of the Petitioner as regards nala, as
stated in the inspection carried out in the year 2005, is
concerned, it is submitted that, the same refers to water stream
and permission was granted by the Corporation, excluding the
portion affected by the water stream, for calculating the FSI.
11. Locus of the Petitioner is also challenged. It is submitted
that the petitioner has failed to point out violation of specific
rule. It is further contended that, measurement map at page 30
of the petition clearly indicates that no nala is passing through
CTS 14813/118. Yet, the area discovered at the time of physical
verification has been deducted while calculating FSI. It is
submitted that permission is not lapsed, since development
charges were deposited earlier. It is, therefore, contended that no
public law element is involved for adjudication in the present PIL
and, therefore, the PIL may be dismissed with exemplary cost.
12. Respondents No.5 to 8, by filing reply affidavit, have
opposed the PIL, by raising similar contentions, as are raised on
behalf of Respondent No.2. It is submitted that the PIL is filed
after completion of the construction of 90 flats.
13. Respondent No.5, by filing Criminal Application No. 2933 of
2025, has raised preliminary objection as to the maintainability
of the present PIL, inter alia, on the grounds that, there is no
{9} cripli9-22.doc
allegation of violation of any statutory provision and the
allegations of fraud and collusion are not substantiated by
documents. Vague allegations are levelled and no public interest
is pointed out by the Petitioner. The Petition is based on
sweeping and unsubstantiated allegations regarding the land
encroachment, misinterpretation of development plan,
reservation and purported violation of fire safety. Alternate
remedy is available to the Petitioner under the MRTP Act and
Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulations
(UDCPR), Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and Indian Penal
Code. The Petitioner has directly approached this Court without
first approaching the statutory authorities. The allegations are
vague and unsubstantiated. The PIL is registered without
following rules framed by the High Court. PIL is not filed for
vindication of rights of any vulnerable class nor does it involve
violation of any fundamental right of the marginalized sections.
The Petitioner does not belong to any weaker section of the
society. The PIL is filed with personal agenda of the Petitioner.
Hence, the same may be dismissed.
14. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties and
learned APP at length. Perused the memo of PIL and the
documents annexed with it and the affidavits filed on behalf of
the Respondents.
{10} cripli9-22.doc
15. Initially, this petition was filed as Criminal Writ Petition. On
14th July, 2022, the Petitioner requested permission to delete
prayer clause "B", which reads thus :
"B. By issuing appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature,
this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the commencement
certificate 998/17-18 dated 01.03.2018 which is revised on
14.05.2020 bearing No. 7/20-21 and for that purpose issue necessary
orders"
The Petitioner also sought permission to convert present
Petition into Criminal Public Interest Litigation. The Petitioner was
permitted to delete prayer clause "B" and permitted to convert
present Petition into Criminal Public Interest Litigation.
16. As the Petitioner has given up prayer clause "B", we are
not going into the merits of the commencement certificate,
which was issued to Respondents No. 5 to 8, by Respondent
No.2.
17. Claim of the Petitioner that, incorrect map is prepared
which is against development plan sanctioned by the
Government, relates back to the year 2004-05. On the ground of
delay and latches, we refuse to go into the said allegations.
18. Petitioner prays for direction to the Respondent Authorities
for conducting an inquiry in respect of submission of false
{11} cripli9-22.doc
documents by Respondents No.5 to 8 and Officers of Respondent
No.2 in respect of Permissions No. 998 and 7 for CTS No.
14813/118 situated at Pannalal Nagar, Aurangabad and to
register an offence against Respondents No.5 to 8 and all the
concerned Officers. We find that the allegations made by the
Petitioner, about submission of fabricated documents, are vague
and are not substantiated by anything worth to be called as
evidence. The Petitioner has failed to point out as to which
documents are fabricated in the present case. This Court cannot
direct a roving inquiry into the vague and unsubstantiated
allegations made by the Petitioner.
19. The Petitioner claims that Respondents No.5 to 8 have
submitted false documents and on the basis of the said
fabricated documents, permission No. 998/17-18 and 7/20-21 for
CTS No. 14813/118 is granted and, therefore, offence should be
directed to be registered against them.
20. If at all, the Petitioner really had material to substantiate
his allegations of forgery and fabrication of documents, being a
lawyer, he would have approached the police machinery. He
neither approached the police machinery nor has filed private
complaint against the Respondents. On failure of the Petitioner to
avail alternate efficacious remedy, we refuse to entertain the
{12} cripli9-22.doc
present PIL, by which the Petitioner seeks inquiry into
unsubstantiated allegations made by him.
21. Public Interest Litigation is a mechanism to protect public
from abuse of power and / or inaction of the public authorities.
Taking into consideration the facts of the present case, the
Petitioner has failed to point out that there is abuse of power on
the part of the Respondent authorities. It is well settled that
unless there is clear abuse of power, the Court should not
interfere in PIL. The Petitioner has failed to bring his case within
the above parameters.
22. The Respondents have brought to our notice representation
dated 30th September, 2024 made by the Petitioner to the
Commissioner of the Corporation, making similar allegations
against another builder of Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar as are
made in the present PIL.
23. Petitioner being a lawyer by profession, he does not belong
to EWS or LIG category, therefore, there is no substance in his
contention that he is espousing the cause of EWS or LIG category
people. It is not the case that the builder has to give away 20%
land or constructed area free of cost to MHADA. MHADA has to
pay land rate of the said area to the builder. In this view of the
matter, we are of the considered view that there is no public
{13} cripli9-22.doc
interest involved in the present matter.
24. In view of the aforestated reasons, there is no merit in the
PIL and the same is, therefore, dismissed. In the peculiar facts of
the present case, we permit the petitioner to withdraw the
amount of Rs.50,000/- deposited by him.
25. In view of disposal of the Criminal Public Interest Litigation,
Criminal Application No. 2933 of 2025 is disposed of.
[ SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE ] [ NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI ]
JUDGE JUDGE
drp/cripli9-22.doc
