Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Parisar, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, working for conservation of nature and environment, filed a suit against the Pune Municipal Corporation, a corporation established under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (BPMC Act). The suit sought a declaration that the Corporation has no right to construct roads or structures in the Mutha river bed and for perpetual injunction, along with directions to conserve the river bed, green belts, and heritage structures. The Corporation had taken a decision to construct new roads parallel to the river Mutha in Pune city, and construction started in 2000. The appellant society filed the suit in the year 2000. The Corporation contested the suit on grounds including lack of jurisdiction of the civil court under Section 487 of the BPMC Act, and lack of locus standi of the appellant. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appellate court confirmed the dismissal. The appellant then filed a second appeal before the High Court. The High Court framed substantial questions of law regarding the jurisdiction of the civil court and the locus standi of the appellant. The Court held that Section 487 of the BPMC Act bars the jurisdiction of the civil court in respect of anything done or purported to be done under the Act. The construction of the road was an act done under the Act, and therefore the civil court had no jurisdiction. The Court also held that the appellant society had no locus standi as it did not prove any special damage over and above the general public. The suit was essentially a public interest litigation, which cannot be filed as a civil suit; the proper remedy is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the second appeal, confirming the judgments of the courts below.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Bar under Section 487 of BPMC Act, 1949 - The suit challenging construction of road by Municipal Corporation on river bed is barred by Section 487 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, as the act complained of is done or purported to be done under the Act. The civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain such suit. (Paras 5-7) B) Environmental Law - Locus Standi - Special Damage - A society working for conservation of nature and environment cannot maintain a suit for injunction against construction of road on river bed without proving special damage over and above the general public. The society has no locus standi as it has not shown any infringement of its own rights. (Paras 8-10) C) Environmental Law - Public Interest Litigation - Maintainability - A public interest litigation cannot be filed as a civil suit. The proper remedy is to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The suit is not maintainable. (Para 11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging the construction of a road by the Municipal Corporation on a river bed, and whether the appellant society has locus standi to file such a suit.
Final Decision
Second Appeal dismissed. The judgment and order of the First Appeal Court confirming the trial court's dismissal of the suit is upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Civil court jurisdiction barred by Section 487 of BPMC Act
- 1949
- Locus standi requires special damage
- Public interest litigation not maintainable in civil suit
