LAWS(BOM)-2012-11-83

PARISAR Vs. PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

Decided On November 26, 2012
Parisar Appellant
V/S
PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Admit. By consent of parties appeal is heard finally at the stage of admission.

(2.) Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and Order dated 30.6.2011 of the First Appeal Court, Pune in Civil Appeal No.293 of 2008 thereby confirming the judgment and decree passed in R.C.S No.725 of 2000 passed by the trial Court.

(3.) The appellant is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 working for the conservation of nature and environment. The respondent is a Corporation established under the Bombay Provincial Corporations Act, 1949. (Hereinafter called as "BPMC ACT") The respondent-Corporation took a decision to construct new roads running parallel to river Mutha in the heart of the Pune city. The suit road is one of such roads and its construction started in the year 2000. The said decision was detrimental to the existence of river Mutha, so appellant society filed a suit for declaration that the Corporation has no right to construct road or structures in Mutha river bed and for perpetual injunction. In the suit the appellants have also prayed for other directions to be given to the Corporation to conserve Mutha river bed and green belts surrounded and also to conserve heritage structures at the Mutha river bank. The suit was contested by the respondent-Corporation by filing written statement on different grounds. The issues in respect of the power of the Corporation to construct such roads & possibility of the pollution of the water were framed. So also the issues about the maintainability of the suit for want of Section 487 of the BPMC Act and as the suit involved a public interest, therefore, on the ground of the locus-standi of the appellant and the jurisdiction of the civil Court, were framed on the basis of the contentions raised by the Corporation in the written statement. The appeal Court also determined the points on the same line and the appeal and the suit both, were dismissed by the courts below.