SANGHARSH KRUTI SAMITI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Parchure, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Jog, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos. 1 and 2, Shri Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3, shri Kaptan, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4, Shri Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5, Shri manohar, learned Senior Counsel with Shri bhangde, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 6, and Shri Kulkarni, learned counsel for the intervener.

(2.) The petition is directed against the notification dated 30-1-2003 issued by the state Government whereby user of the land in question is changed from park to commercial.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the respondents, particularly Shri Manohar, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 6, submitted that the present petition suffers from grave delay and laches. It was contended that on 30-5-2002, the Nagpur Improvement trust (hereinafter referred to as the "nit for the sake of brevity) published notification under section 37 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 'mrtp Act' for the sake of brevity) in the Official Gazette and invited objections from the public to the proposed change of user. On 5-6-2002, the NIT published notice in the daily newspaper Tarun bharat' inviting objections from the public to the proposed change of user. It was submitted that though public at large including petitioner was aware about the said notification and public notice, neither petitioner nor any member of the public raised any objection either to the notification or public notice except maharashtra State Electricity board. The NIT submitted its report and proposal to the State Government and the State government after completing the statutory procedure issued the impugned notification dated 30-1-3003 under section 37 (2) of the mrtp Act. It was further contended that on 5-4-2003, the respondent No. 5 issued public notice inviting tenders for sale of land in question. Even at that time, the petitioner did not raise any objection pursuant to the said public notice either before the respondent No. 5 or before the State Government. The tender of the respondent No. 6 was accepted by the respondent No. 5 Corporation on 20-6-2003. The respondent No. 6 paid the entire tender amount of Rs. 12. 81 crores by 19-9-2003 to the respondent No. 5. It was submitted that possession of land in question was delivered to the respondent No. 6 on 19-3-2004 and the petitioner for the first time approached this Court by filing present petition on 6-5-2004. It was contended that due to reason of delay in approaching the court, the parties altered their position resulting in creation of third party rights and, therefore, present public interest litigation may be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. It was also argued by the learned senior Counsel for the respondent No. 6 that sacrosanct jurisdiction of public interest litigation should be invoked very sparingly and in favour of vigilant litigant and not for the persons, who invoke this jurisdiction for the sake of serving their private ends. In the instant case, huge amount of Rs. 12. 81 crores was paid by the respondent No. 6 by 19-9-2003 to the respondent No. 5 Corporation and because of the present public interest litigation, entire work of the project, which respondent No. 6 wanted to execute, is delayed, which has further resulted in enormous escalation in cost of work, apart from losing interest on amount of Rs. 12. 81 crores since 19-9-2003. It was submitted that in the backdrop of the above referred undisputed facts, it is evident that petitioner in spite of being well aware about change of user of land in question as notified by the State government vide impugned notification and tender notice issued by the respondent No. 5, did not raise any objection and approached this Court at such a belated stage when third party rights have been created, with the sole object to delay execution of the project of respondent No. 6 and, therefore, petition suffers from delay and laches and same is liable to be dismissed on this ground.