Friday, Apr 26, 2024 | Last Update : 05:06 PM IST
Bombay HC raps DSK society for blocking entry to public ground
The petitioner alleged that the recreational ground and playground were being utilised for commercial purposes.
Mumbai: The Bombay high court on Friday pulled up Cuffe Parade’s DSK society for not allowing common people and children to enter the public recreational ground near the building. “Public area is very precious, at least for people who don’t have a home. Leave something for the poor people”. The petitioner alleged that the recreational ground and playground had been built for the public and children but was now being utilised for commercial purposes.
A division bench of chief justice Manjula Chellur and justice M.S. Sonak was hearing a petition filed by Sanjay Kokate, a social worker, who alleged that a piece of land under the Colaba division admeasuring 1525.28 sq ft, which was reserved for recreational purposes, was being used instead by Ambiance Ventures Estate and Developments Private Limited who had developed five DSK buildings and a gymnasium for high-class people.
According to the petitioner, there was a difference between the plan approved by MCGM and construction carried out by the builder. The petitioner alleged that the developer and MCGM officers used 33 per cent of the plot for DSK Tower and 67 per cent for the gymnasium and swimming pool and no space was kept for the public. Meanwhile, building residents claimed that the ground was owned by the society.
While hearing the matter, the court receiver informed the court that when they went to see the premises, they were not allowed to enter. He also submitted his report to the court, after perusing which, justice Sonak said, “How can you stop the public from entering the ground. Public area is precious, at least for those who don’t have homes. Leave something for the poor people.”
The court also said, “We will examine the exit of your building. How can you set up a security cabin on the ground?”
The society’s lawyer argued that the society did not have any wrong intention but the court replied that it wasn’t concerned with the society’s intention and that the latter’s action was speaking louder than its intention
