IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.140 OF 2024 Sharad Ghodke, ]

Social Worker, R/o. New Panvel ] .. Petitioner Versus

1. State of Maharashtra, ]

Through Department of Urban Development ]

2. Panvel Municipal Corporation, ]

Tal. Panvel, Dist. Raigad ]

3. Director of Town Planning, ]

Konkan Division, Navi Mumbai ]

4. City Industrial & Development Corporation, ]

CBD-Belapur, Navi Mumbai ] .. Respondents Mr. B.R. Zaveri, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. Birendra B. Saraf, Advocate General with Ms. Neha S. Bhide, Government Pleader, Mr. O.A. Chandurkar, Additional Government Pleader and Mrs. G.R. Raghuwanshi, Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent-State of Maharashtra.

Mr. Sarang S. Aradhye with Ms. Gauri Velankar, Advocates for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

Mr. Sameer Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.4.

CORAM : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ. &

GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.

DATE : 4TH NOVEMBER 2025.

P.C. :

On 27^th January 2025, the following order was passed by this Court :-

“1 In this Writ Petition, notification dated 7/10/2024 issued by respondent no.1 has been issued under which clause 16 in United Development Control and Promotion Regulations for Maharashtra (UDCPR) has been sanctioned. A Bench of this Court on 16/12/2024 had issued notice.

2 When the matter is called today, he pray for and is granted four weeks’ time to enable them to file affidavit in reply.

List on 24/2/2025.”

2. The petitioner is claiming that he is a dedicated social worker having experience of more than twenty years in supporting the cause of elderly individuals, children and teenagers. He states that he is an Editor of Dainik Lokmat and connected with Human Rights Protection Association. The petitioner further states that he is a resident of Panvel and the land-holders within the jurisdiction of Panvel Municipal Corporation shall be affected and suffer irreparable loss on account of the Notification dated 7^th October

2024. The petitioner has made the following prayers :-

“(a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order and direction calling of the records and proceedings in respect of the Notification dated 7.10.2024 (Exhibit ‘A’) issued under Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 bearing No.TPS-1224/1018/ CR.15/24/UD-12 and after examining the legality and validity thereof, be pleased to quash and set aside the said Notification dated 7.10.2024;

(b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order and direction, declaring that the impugned Notification dated 7.10.2024 (Exhibit ‘A’ hereto) is illegal and ultra vires;

(c) That pending the hearing and final disposal of this Petition, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay the operation and implementation of the Notification dated 7.10.2024 (Exhibit ‘A’) issued under Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 bearing No.TPS-1224/1018/CR.15/24/UD-12;

(d) Ad-interim and interim reliefs in terms of prayer in terms of prayer (c) above be granted;

(e) Cost of the petition be provided for;

(f) Such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

3. To support this writ petition as a public interest litigation, the learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the orders passed by this Court on different occasions. This is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court having taken cognizance of the matter, decided to issue notice to the respondents and in compliance thereof two affidavits have been filed by the State-respondents. In short, the submission made at the Bar on behalf of the petitioner is that having travelled so far, this Court must hear this writ petition labeled as Public Interest Litigation.

4. To the aforesaid submissions, we are inclined to indicate that mere issuing notices in the matter shall not be a ground to entertain a petition as a public interest litigation. Th