Bombay High Court Takes On Alleged Political Shield for Illegal Vashi Buildings, Treats Plea Against Dy CM's Stay as PIL

In a significant development that underscores the ongoing battle against illegal constructions and alleged political interference, the Bombay High Court has decided to treat a plea challenging Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde's stay order on the demolition of two unauthorized buildings in Vashi, Navi Mumbai, as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL).

The plea, originally filed by architect Sandeep Patil, brings into sharp focus the contentious issue of government intervention in municipal enforcement actions.

Patil's petition specifically targets a stay order issued by Shinde in July 2021, during his tenure as the Urban Development Minister. This order, according to the petitioner, effectively shielded two buildings, Krishna Niwas and Laxmi Niwas, both constructed by the Prabhu Co-operative Housing Society, from demolition despite clear notices from the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (NMMC).

The NMMC had, as early as 2017, issued demolition notices to these structures, citing a litany of violations.

These included the egregious misuse of excess Floor Space Index (FSI), unauthorized changes in building use, and the construction of additional floors without the requisite permissions. Such violations not only flout urban planning norms but also raise serious safety concerns for residents.

The High Court's decision to convert the petition into a PIL elevates the matter beyond a mere individual grievance, signaling its broader public importance.

This move by a bench of Justices Sunil Shukre and Firdosh Pooniwalla reflects the judiciary's increasing vigilance against actions that could undermine urban governance and the rule of law. During the proceedings, the court unequivocally stated that the state government cannot protect illegal structures, even if there are provisions for regularization under specific, stringent circumstances.

Patil's PIL seeks the immediate quashing of Shinde's stay order, arguing that it was an arbitrary exercise of power that circumvented due process.

Furthermore, it demands a directive for the swift demolition of these non-compliant buildings, ensuring that the NMMC's original notices are finally enforced. The petition implicitly, and at times explicitly, points towards a pattern where political clout might be used to circumvent legal mandates, a concern that resonates deeply with citizens grappling with unchecked development.

The High Court has now directed both the state government and the NMMC to file their detailed responses to the PIL.

The matter is slated for further hearing on June 20, a date that will be keenly watched by urban planners, activists, and citizens concerned about transparency and accountability in local governance. This case serves as a crucial reminder of the judiciary's role in upholding environmental and urban planning integrity against all odds, even when powerful political figures are involved.