Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2024 DAILYLAW 1455 (BOM)

RAKESH MANILAL SHELKE v. UNION OF INDIA THR. DEFENCE DEPT. AND ORS

WP/4217/2024 · 2026-06-22

Shri M S Karnik, Shri S M Modak

Public Interest Litigationbody2024

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

LSP 1 72 wp 4217.24.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 4217 of 2024 Mr. Rakesh Manilal Shelke … Petitioner V/s. Union of India and others … Respondents. Mr. Surya Shelke a/w. Pallabi Chatterjee h/f. Hemant Ghadigaonkar for the petitioner. Mr. Kedar B. Dighe for respondent Nos.1 and 2 - UOI. Mr. Anand Kulkarni for respondent No.4. Mr. Girish S. Godbole a/w. Kaustubh Thipsay and Advocate Shivrat Pathe for respondent No.6. Ms. Minal Chandani (through v.c.) for respondent No.5. Mr. A.K. Naik, AGP for the State. CORAM : M.S. KARNIK & S.M. MODAK, JJ. DATE : 22nd June 2026. P.C. : 1. The present petition is filed in the nature of PIL. The petitioner has filed a suit claiming to be a owner of the property. Suit was filed in the year 2022. The interim injunction prayed for by the petitioner was rejected on 28th February 2023 by the trial Court. Thereafter, in the month of May 2023, present petition is filed saying that the construction made by the respondent No.6 is completely against national interest as the same is done without obtaining prior LSP 2 72 wp 4217.24.doc permission of the defence authorities. 2. There is an affidavit filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 supporting the petitioner’s case. However, it is always open for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to initiate appropriate action if the permission granted by the Corporation is not in accordance with the provisions of law. 3. Hard copy of the affidavit-in-reply is tendered by the Union of India. The same is taken on record. 4. The present petition as filed prima facie appears to be espousing the personal interest of the petitioner which is in the garb of public interest. In any case we are not inclined to entertain the present petition at the behest of the present petitioner. However, liberty of the petitioner to file a public interest litigation is kept open. 5. Writ Petition is disposed of. 6. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on any of the contentions of either parties. All contentions are kept open. (S.M.MODAK,J.) (M.S.KARNIK, J.)