M.B.SHAH, J.N.PATEL
P. Navin Kumar and others – Appellant
Versus
Bombay Municipal Corporation and others – Respondent
2.In our view, this not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the Corporation is providing a facility which is a must for human beings at a place which is visited by thousands of persons every day. Facility of providing toilet block is also to prevent nuisance arising because of unauthorised use of the open space to answer natural calls by people visiting the area. Further, the resolution to construct toilet block was already passed on 5th August, 1991. No objection was taken at the relevant time. Subsequently, toilet block is constructed and thereafter the present petition is filed on 13th March, 1992.
3.Apart from this, on merits also, we do not think that any interference is called for by this Court.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that -
(a) the construction of a toilet block is in violation of the Coastal Regulation Zon
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.