Read Time: 04 minutes
Deshpande informed the bench that he had received information that the authorities had acquired land for the expansion. Deshpande submitted that he had made representations before the authorities to expedite the process, but they were not considered.
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday refused to hear a Public Interest Litigation seeking the expansion of Pune airport.
The division bench of the high court, comprising Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor, heard a PIL filed by Aniruddha Deshpande, who sought the expansion of the airport.
Deshpande informed the bench that he had received information that the authorities had acquired land for the expansion.
Deshpande submitted that he had made representations before the authorities to expedite the process, but they were not considered.
Therefore, he approached the high court seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the authorities to act. However, the division bench stated that the decision of where to have an airport is the prerogative of the executive.
“Had you made statutory representation and authority were not deciding then we could consider. Where to have and not to have an airport is prerogative of the executive. It's an exclusive realm of executives. There is no violation of statutory right, fundamental right and constitutional right then how can we issue such directions?” the bench said.
The high court also said that espousing aspiration and espousing legal rights are different things and that courts are not there to espouse aspiration.
“You may have a good cause, that Pune needs a bigger airport, we get that. We are only saying use the proper forum. The question foremost is whether this should lie before the court, we grant you liberty to pursue your remedy on the administrative side. Espousing of aspiration and espousing legal rights are different things. Courts are not there for espousing aspirations,” the court said.
The bench then asked the advocate representing the petitioner to take instructions on whether the petitioner agreed to withdraw the PIL.
After taking instructions from the petitioner, the advocate informed the division bench that the petitioner had decided to withdraw the PIL.
Case title: Aniruddha Deshpande vs Union of India & Ors
Please Login or Register
