Court Questions Cantonment and Civic Authorities Over Unchecked Illegal Constructions

Court questioned how the two agencies could avoid their responsibility by blaming each other and expressing helplessness rather than enforcing the law.
Bombay High Court
Bombay High CourtThe Bridge Chronicle / Manoranjan Mishra
Published on

Pune: The Bombay High Court has expressed strong displeasure over the lack of action taken by the Cantonment Board and the Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation concerning illegal constructions in the Pimpri-Chinchwad area.

The case revolves around the basement warehouse of Nirman Arcade, which was illegally converted into a bar and restaurant without any permits on land owned by the Cantonment Board. Despite being aware of these unauthorized developments, both agencies have failed to take any action.

Bombay High Court
Bombay High Court Combines Wife’s Cases Against Husband, Moves Them to Pune

Justice Kamal Khata's bench criticized the authorities, noting that their inaction has allowed those involved in illegal constructions to profit significantly.

The court emphasized the need for immediate action, instructing the Cantonment Board to seal the premises and initiate criminal proceedings.

Additionally, the court ordered an inquiry into whether the operators had acquired the necessary licenses from the Cantonment Board’s members for running the bar and restaurant.

The court also directed the Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation to conduct a site inspection within 15 days and to take appropriate legal action if the allegations are substantiated.

Bombay High Court
Pune-Satara Highway: High Court Reprimands NHAI Over Incomplete Work

The complaint was initially filed by retired military officer Hitendra Chopra through his lawyer, Nitin Deshpande. In response to the complaint, the Cantonment Board had informed the petitioner that they had alerted the relevant authorities. However, when no action was taken, the petitioner approached the High Court.

During the proceedings, the court questioned how the two agencies could avoid their responsibility by blaming each other and expressing helplessness rather than enforcing the law.

The Cantonment Board argued that it was the Municipal Corporation’s responsibility to act on illegal constructions, while the Municipal Corporation claimed that since Nirman Arcade is within the jurisdiction of the Cantonment Board, only the board has the authority to take action as per the Cantonment Act.

Enjoyed reading The Bridge Chronicle?
Your support motivates us to do better. Follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Whatsapp to stay updated with the latest stories.
You can also read on the go with our Android and iOS mobile app.

Related Stories

No stories found.
logo
The Bridge Chronicle
www.thebridgechronicle.com