*1* wp.112.11.934.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.112 OF 2011 Aaatmasantulan Village Pvt. Ltd. and others. ..Petitioners -Versus- The State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents .......... Mr.Sanjay Kshirsagar, for the Petitioners. Mr.Y.S.Jahagirdar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Aniruddha Joshi and Mr.Nitin Mulye, for the Respondent No.4. Mr.S.N.Bhosale, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 29th June, 2011. P.C.: 1 By this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners pray that the order passed by the Respondent No.2-Minister dated 14.11.2010 be quashed and set aside. 2 The Petitioner No.1 is a private limited company and the Petitioner No.2 is director of this private limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The Petitioner No.2 claims ownership rights in the property bearing Gat Nos.302 and 303 situate at village Karla, Taluka : Maval, District : Pune. The Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the authorities under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and the relevant laws. The Respondent No.4 before this Court is a developer and builder. The Petitioners proceed to urge that there is some illegal construction made by the Respondent No.4 on the bank of river Indrayani. *2* wp.112.11.934.sxw 3 The Petitioners have pointed out as to how the activities are beneficial for public and how the treatment of diseases and other activities at the established Holistic Healing Centre are advantageous. It is not necessary to go into the allegations that are made and the statements on the basis of which it is urged that the Petitioners’ activities are in larger public interest and community as a whole. 4 It is contended that the properties that are subject matter of this dispute are on the bank of river Indrayani. There are certain restrictions. Reliance is placed upon certain Government directives and circulars which prohibit the activities of nature which would disturb the ecology and environment. Once again it is not necessary to go into these aspects and particularly, whether, the activities of the Respondent No.4 violate the laws of land and disturb the ecology and environment in the vicinity and particularly the area Karla which is near a hill station. In the present case, it is sufficient to note that the Respondent No.4 was granted permission to commence the non-agricultural activities in the portion of the land which was stated to have been acquired by the Respondent No.4. The Petitioners’ main objection was that such permissions are granted without noticing the objections raised by the Petitioners. There are also averments with regard to filing of civil suits for injunction etc.. It is alleged that there is illegal construction activity. Once again it is not necessary to be referred to. There may be complaints made to all authorities including the water supply and electricity supply. Suffice it to note that there are also allegations that illegal construction and illegal filling of land resulted in submerging of area in water in monsoon. There are photographs annexed to the petition. It is common ground that the Petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code challenging the N.A. permission granted to the *3* wp.112.11.934.sxw Respondent No.4. There is inquiry initiated as to how the permission is granted and pursuant to which the District Collector submitted his report. It is then stated that the reports were received and the Commissioner allowed the appeal partially. The Respondent No.4 challenged this order by preferring an appeal before the Respondent No.2-Minister. The Respondent No.2 stayed that order. There was Writ Petition being No. 3276/2008 filed in this Court challenging that ex-parte stay. That Writ Petition was filed by the Petitioners and even the same was disposed of by direction that the appeal be heard within a time bound period. It is stated that the Respondent No.2-Minister while allowing this appeal constituted a High Power Committee. Those orders are again subject matter of challenge. Number of Writ Petitions and the orders made therein consume a lot of narrative paragraphs of this petition. The argument is that the Collector was aware of the orders made by this Court from time to time. The Collector was aware of the issues relating to ecology and environment and there is element of public interest inasmuch as the activity which is causing public nuisance and annoyance and resulting into submerging of large area in water of river, is detriment and ought not to be permitted. Therefore, the Collector passed an order on 05.03.2009 not to make registration of any document in relation to the property which is stated to have been acquired by the Respondent No.4 or in which the Respondent No.4 has interest. It is this order which was challenged and the Minister has interfered therewith necessitating this Writ Petition. 5 Mr.Kshirsagar, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, has firstly pointed out that once the Minister is aware of the proceedings pending before this Court and the Honourable Supreme Court, he could not have made any order or direction, particularly in the form as it is made in the instant case. The Minister ought to have been aware that his *4* wp.112.11.934.sxw orders and directions are subject to those of the competent court and not otherwise. The Minister cannot make the Court’s orders and directions subject to his power, authority and jurisdiction to pass the requisite orders. That is trying to overreach the Court. Mr.Kshirsagar then submitted that even the Respondent No.4 is aware of the litigation and that there are serious allegations made therein, so also, on going dispute and the directions of the Collector from time to time. In these circumstances, in the garb of making a request to the Minister to set aside the order of the Collector, the Respondent No.4 could not have sought a direction which amounts to overreaching the powers of the authorities under the relevant laws and particularly, in relation to granting electricity connection and water connection. Those authorities exercise their power under the statutes and enactments in that behalf and they cannot be directed by the Minister to provide these facilities. Therefore, sweeping orders and directions of the nature made in this case, deserve to be set aside, particularly in the public interest. 6 On the other hand, Mr.Jahagirdar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contesting Respondent No.4, has submitted that the Petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands. They have annexed some documents stated to be forming a part of the proceedings before the Honourable Supreme Court, but there is no record of the same being filed therein. A false statement is made in paragraph No.46 of the petition. This petition is not at all in the nature of PIL, but it is ventilating personal and private disputes. The Minister ought to have been informed that the Petitioners have approached the Collector and sought his intervention in several matters in relation to the development at site. However, the Collector’s intervention cannot be sought to such an extent so as to prevent the Executive Engineer of Water Works Department and *5* wp.112.11.934.sxw the Executive Engineer of the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company and particularly seeking directions against them not to supply the water and electricity to the project of the Respondent No.4. For all these reasons and when there is no power vested in the Collector to direct the registering authority not to register the documents, the Minister has rightly interfered and his order does not require any intervention in writ jurisdiction of this Court. The order of Minister is in accordance with law and settled legal position. It is not perverse either. For all these reasons, the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed. 7 With the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have perused some of the annexures to the Writ Petition and the impugned order. 8 The Minister of Revenue, Government of Maharashtra, who is Respondent No.2 before me, had to adjudicate and decide the proceedings arising out of the directions issued on 05.03.2009 by the Collector, Pune. After referring to the various permissions that have been issued in favour of the Respondent No.4 and the disputes inter-se, so also, the proceedings before this Court, the Minister has noted the argument of the Respondent No.4. The Minister has also referred to the report of the Collector. The Minister has reproduced, virtually, the contents of this report and particularly that Kishankumar Kedia claims right in Gat No.292 and there are 13 buildings wherein there are some works and activities going on. Similarly, on Gat No.302 there are 101 buildings for which temporary electricity connections have been obtained and even bore-wells have been constructed. There is also reference made to some Nalla. There is also reference to the direction so as to demarcate and determine the flood-line bearing in mind the fact that river flows close to the property. The report which has been given to the Minister, as also, site visits are then referred. *6* wp.112.11.934.sxw The recommendations made to the Government and eventually leading to the issuance of letter dated 05.03.2009 are then set out. 9 On perusal of the entire order, the reasoning of the Minister that even if there is a committee which has been constituted under the Divisional Commissioner, Pune and that committee has forwarded its report to the Government on which necessary action is being taken and further there are Court’s orders and directions, yet, merely because such orders and directions are issued, the Collector was not empowered to give the impugned directions. His letter and particularly the directions contained therein in relation to stopping of electric supply, so also, not registering any document which has been brought for registration at the instance or by the Respondent No.4, have no support in law. In other words, the Minister has observed that the Collector of Pune District is not authorized or empowered by any law to issue the directions that have been issued by him. Assuming that the allegations against the Respondent No.4 are serious and they are being investigated and necessary action will be taken in that behalf, that does not mean that there is an authority or power to issue such directions. 10 Mr.Kshirsagar found it difficult to sustain the directions of the Collector. Admittedly, on my queries as to which law authorizes the Collector to issue such directions to the registering authority not to register any document; he could not point out anything from the Indian Registration Act to this effect. Equally, in exercise of power that the Collector has under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, whether, he can direct the Water Works Department or a Autonomous Corporation incharge of the scheme of water supply to stop giving a water connection or stop existing water supply, nothing is pointed out. Lastly, as far as electric supply is concerned, that is matter solely governed by the *7* wp.112.11.934.sxw Electricity Act, 2003. It is the authorities under the Electricity Act, 2003 who have to take necessary steps so as to stop illegal electric supply or electricity theft. The Collector has no authority nor he is empowered by the Electricity Act, 2003 to issue such directions and this position is also not disputed by the Petitioners before me. 11 In such circumstances, sweeping nature of the orders and directions compelled the State Government to pass the impugned order. It is not the case of the Petitioners that the Minister is not authorized or has no jurisdiction to interfere in exercise of powers under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Similarly, in the peculiar facts of this case and when the Collector decides to override all authorities functioning under statutes with which he is not at all concerned, the directions of the Collector could be made subject matter of challenge before the State Government and seeking its intervention to set aside the same. That is precisely done in this case. I find no reason to quash and set aside the order of the Minister. It is not vitiated by any error of law nor could be termed as perverse. The argument that the Minister has tried to override the Court of law is not supported and mere wording of operative clause-4 of the order, does not lead to the conclusion that the Minister has tried to do so. In fact the orders and directions of the Minister will not prejudice the Petitioners in any manner inasmuch as they are subject to the orders and directions of this Court and the Honourable Supreme Court. While setting aside the orders and directions dated 05.03.2009 in clause-2, the Minister has directed the Collector, Pune to abide by the order passed by this Court on 01.12.2009. At the same time, the authorities who are incharge of giving water and electricity supply, are to be guided by the order passed by this Court on 01.12.2009 as would be clear from clause-3 thereof. Equally, none of the proceedings pending in Courts of law are going to be affected *8* wp.112.11.934.sxw is the clarification given by the Minister in clause-4. When such is nature of the interference and causing no prejudice to the Petitioners, then, all the more, this is not a fit case for this Court to exercise its writ jurisdiction. While declining to interfere, it is clarified that the order passed by the Minister and impugned in this petition, shall not be treated overriding or over-reaching any of the orders of this Court or that of the Honourable Supreme Court and that all parties before this Court will have to abide by the same. Additionally, it is directed that the orders and directions are without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both parties in the pending litigation and disputes. The Minister’s order shall not be construed as interference with the power and authority of the authorities and particularly to take action against the Respondent No.4, if the activities of the Respondent No.4 are found to be illegal. The authorities must proceed to take action without being influenced by the Minister’s order. Equally, the directions of the Minister shall not be construed as a command to the Executive Engineers in the water and electricity supply departments and they will grant connections or renew the same in accordance with the applicable laws, guidelines, rules and regulations framed for grant of such water and electricity connections. Equally, the order of Minister shall not be construed as interference with the power and authority of such authorities to impose necessary and relevant conditions so as to protect the environment and ecology from the illegal activities and developments, if any. With these clarifications, this Writ Petition is dismissed, but without any order as to costs. 12 Reliance placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Bombay Environment Action Group and another v/s State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2001(4) Mh.L.J. 260 and particularly paragraph 47 thereof, is misplaced. In those proceedings, it *9* wp.112.11.934.sxw was the argument that any construction activity under the flyover, will not be regulated by the laws which are applicable for building construction and development on the land. Turning down this argument that the observations relied upon have been made. The said observations have no applicability in the instant case. 13 The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)