Demolition notice to illegal Vashi buildings: Bombay HC seeks to know if plea against Dy CM Ekanth Shinde’s stay on demolition of 2 Navi Mumbai buildings can be treated as PIL

The notices, as per plea, were issued to those who allegedly constructed illegal buildings in Sector-9 of Vashi, including a 14-floor Naivedya building and D- wing of 7-storey Albela. The plea claimed the two societies approached Shinde on the same date and “further steps towards demolition were thwarted” due to the stay.

On September 17, the HC noted that though the NGO has not taken up a cause of encroachment on public land or a public street or land belonging to the government, “a serious issue was raised as regards illegal structures being erected since 2002-2003 onwards”.

The Court had then sought state’s lawyer’s response on “what was the source of authority” to pass a stay order “by interjecting a statutory process undertaken by the competent authorities.” The bench had said it will leave it to the Deputy CM to decide if the state shows the authority under the law, however questioned if such a stay order can be passed in absence of such a power.

On Saturday, Advocate General (AG) Birendra Saraf, representing the state government, argued that the NGO could not have registered the petition as its private plea. AG Saraf submitted that “the petition needs to be scrutinised as to whether it is in the nature of a PIL, keeping in view that the petitioner claims to be an NGO and seems to have raised the issue in the interest of the public.”

However, advocate Akhilesh Dubey for the petitioner NGO responded there was no power under MRTP Act for Shinde to stay the civic body’s decision and state government, “rather than showing power under the law, ” was trying to “show power over the law.”

“That is one subject of law… You are saying that you are taking up this cause in the interest of the public. Why did you circulate it in this court (not having an assignment of hearing PIL)?,” Justice Ghuge orally questioned the petitioner.

“Because this NGO works in that area and has a right to challenge that (illegal construction) as the MRTP law is the law which involves public interaction. Every time the Development Plan (DP) is prepared, suggestions and objections are called from the public who are residents of the area. Otherwise (if it was not a writ plea), the question would have come that you have a political interest ,” Dubey argued

“You are aware that day (September 17) at first blush we were not inclined to intervene. We said go to civil court. We said if you are insisting, then only we will admit (petition). Then you pointed out that this has happened (stay by Deputy CM). Then we took cognisance. So we were open to hearing it. It is not that we come with a closed mind,” the senior judge said.

The bench then directed “the Registrar (Judicial) to verify and submit a report as to whether this matter carries a cause in public interest and whether this petition can be said to be a PIL” and sought a report on the same within two weeks

From the homepage

India warns of ‘likely humanitarian consequences’ after US H-1B visa fee hike

Explained: H-1B visas, Indians, and the immigration discourse in the US

Malayalam superstar Mohanlal honoured with the Dadasaheb Phalke Award 2023