Public interest litigations must avoid delay and vagueness in claims; authorities should handle illegal construction issues, with the courts exercising restraint in ongoing matters.

JUDGMENT :

GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.

The petitioner is a social activist, who claims that he has filed several Public Interest Litigations in the past. He has approached this Court alleging that numerous buildings within the jurisdiction of the respondent no.2–Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (“NMMC”) have been constructed illegally, without adherence to sanctioned plans and planning laws. It is further alleged that several such buildings are already occupied despite the absence of an occupation certificate (“OC”). The petitioner, therefore, seeks multiple reliefs, including initiation of inquiries against the concerned architects, a direction to the respondent no.2 to immediately take steps to vacate buildings that are occupied without a valid OC and demolition of all illegal constructions in the limits of the respondent no.2. Those prayers are extracted herein below:

“(A). That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, directing the Respondent No. 2, NMMC to compile a list of developments which are occupied without obtaining Occupation Certificates and keep the said list up to date.

(B). That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, directing the Respondent No. 2, NMMC to, after compiling the list as per (A) above, take action of demolition of those parts of the developments which are not as per the Approved Plan.

(C). That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, directing the Respondent No.2, NMMC to, after compiling the list as per (A) above, take steps to vacate the developments which are occupied without obtaining Occupation Certificates.

(D). That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, directing the Respondent No.2, NMMC to, after compiling the list as per (A) above, hold enquiries against the concerned architects of the relevant developers who were required to supervise the development as per the Approved Plan but have not brought the unauthorized development to the notice of the Respondent No.2, NMMC in time and to take appropriate actions against the architects found wanting.

(E). That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, directing the Respondent No. 1, State to conduct a Secretary level enquiry to find out why timely action was not taken by the officials of the Respondent No.2, NMMC and determine the officials of Respondent No. 2., NMMC responsible for this serious lapse and take disciplinary action against them in accordance with applicable regulations.”

2. As the hearing of the petition progressed, several Interim Applications came to be filed by both sides, resulting in a voluminous paper-book. The following table is a summary of the Interim Applications pending in this PIL:-