The Bombay High Court dismissed a batch of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) challenging the Maharashtra Government’s decision to set up the Balasaheb Thackeray Rashtriya Smarak (memorial) at the Mayor’s Bungalow site in Shivaji Park, Mumbai. The petitions were filed by Jan Mukti Morcha, Pankaj Rajmachikar, Bhagvanji Rayani, and Santosh Daundkar, each contesting various aspects of the project, including land allotment, development plan modifications, and the composition of the trust managing the memorial.
The petitioners objected to multiple government actions: the 2016 Government Resolution approving the memorial, amendments to Section 92 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act permitting a 30-year lease at a nominal rent of ₹1 per year, and the 2019 notification changing the land’s zoning from a Green Zone to Residential Zone. They also alleged procedural irregularities and argued that public land and amenities were arbitrarily repurposed, and that the trust created to manage the memorial lacked transparency and neutrality, being dominated by Shiv Sena party members and Thackeray family members.
The High Court, led by Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne, held that the choice of location and policy decisions such as the setting up of a memorial are within the executive’s discretion and not open to judicial interference unless they violate constitutional principles or due process. The Court found no procedural impropriety or legal infirmity in the State Government’s process of land allotment or the amendment to the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act.
The Court noted that the planning authority had followed due procedure under the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act (MRTP) while modifying the development plan. Public objections were invited and addressed, and the final change relabeling the site from “Mayor’s Bungalow” to “Balasaheb Thackeray Rashtriya Smarak” and rezoning it was legally sanctioned. The Court emphasized that the setting up of memorials for national figures like Balasaheb Thackeray serves a public purpose and cannot be equated with private enrichment.
Furthermore, the Court dismissed concerns about the composition of the memorial trust, stating that including Thackeray family members and Shiv Sena representatives did not amount to illegality, especially considering Balasaheb Thackeray’s political legacy and founding of the party. It also observed that the land remained under MCGM ownership and was leased, not transferred.
The Court also took note of the practical completion of the memorial and the restoration of the heritage Mayor’s Bungalow, stating that no environmental laws were violated, as clearance was obtained from the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA).
Concluding that no fundamental rights were infringed, no procedural violations occurred, and that the decision fell within legitimate policy-making authority, the Court dismissed all the PILs without costs.
Advocates appearing in the case:Â
Mr. Sunip Sen, Senior Advocate with Ms. Rujuta Patil and Mr. Yohaan Shah i/b Negandhi Shah & Himayatullah, for Petitioner in PIL/40/2019.
Dr. Uday Warunjikar, for Petitioner in PIL(L)/81/2017.
Mr. Darius J. Khambata, Senior Advocate with Mr. Joel Carlos i/b Mr. Yogesh Patil & Mr. Tushar Hathiramani, for Respondent No. 3 in PIL(L)/51/2017, PIL/40/2019, PIL(L)/81/2017 & for Respondent No. 7 in PIL/9/2019.
Smt. P.H. Kantharia, Govt. Pleader with Mrs. Jyoti Chavan, Addl. GP for State-Respondent No. 1 in PIL(L)/51/2017, PIL/9/2019.
Smt. Jyoti Chavan, Addl. GP for State, Respondent No. 1 in PIL(L)/81/2017.
Mr. Milind More, Addl. GP for State, Respondent No. 1 in PIL/40/2019.
Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate with Ms. Chaitalee Deochake i/b Ms. Komal R. Punjabi, for MCGM, Respondent No. 2 in PIL/40/2019 & PIL(L)/81/2017 and for Respondent No. 1 & 5 in PIL(L)/51/2017.
Mr. Vishal Kanade i/b Ms. Jaya Bagwe, for MCZMA, Respondent No. 4 in PIL/9/2019.
Mr. Santosh Daundkar, Petitioner-in-person in PIL/9/2019, present.
Read Judgment
