The Bombay High Court recently issued a notice in a PIL alleging that the public money is being spent for a private purposes, enabling a private operator to derive gains from the public money, in an illegal manner for the development and management of the amusement park.
The Nagpur bench comprised of Justice Sunil B. Shukre and Justice Anil L. Pansare having considered the submissions and also the documents referred to which are part of the petition, are of the view that the grievances which are raised in this petition, require consideration. Therefore, issued notice to the respondents.
The Court was informed by the counsel for the petitioner that there is another petition challenging the decision regarding payment of compensation of Rs.19,20,40,946/- to a private limited company as against the original demand of Rs.162.12 Crores, filed by a Private Limited Company , which is pending with this Court. Therefore the Court ordered to tag both the Petition .
The Amusement Park existed on the land, which was handed over to a private limited company on Build–operate–transfer (BOT) basis by the Nagpur Improvement Trust.
The contention of the petitioner is that the foreclosure of the contract of development and management of the the land handed over on BOT basis by Nagpur Improvement Trust to a Private Limited Company was entirely in between the them and therefore, it ought to have been sorted out in-between them only and Maharashtra Metro Rail Corporation Limited, could not have been asked to pay the compensation to a private limited company .
The PIL has been filed by Sandeep Badriprasad Agrawal who is aggrieved by the decision of the Nagpur Improvement Trust, to make Maharashtra Metro Rail Corporation Limited pay compensation of Rs.19,20,40,946/-, for loss of profit due to foreclosure of the Amusement Park.
The further grievance of the Petitioner is that the decision to call upon Maharashtra Metro Rail Corporation Limited to pay compensation to a private limited company was made by High Level Committee and when an information was sought by the petitioner regarding the report of the High Level Committee dated 20.01.2020, the petitioner was informed that the Committee under the Chairmanship of the Divisional Commissioner did not send any report whatsoever.