Introduction:

In the matter of Digambar Raghunath Mungekar vs The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (PIL/5/2025), the Bombay High Court addressed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by senior citizens concerning illegal parking near Vikhroli Railway Station Road. The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M.S. Karnik, emphasised the role of public-spirited individuals in not only highlighting issues but also actively participating in their resolution. The court suggested that the petitioners engage in awareness campaigns to educate the public about the illegality and inconvenience caused by unauthorised parking.

Petitioners’ Arguments:

The petitioners, a group of senior citizens, contended that illegal parking near Vikhroli Railway Station Road was causing significant inconvenience to the public. They argued that the authorities had failed to take adequate measures to prevent unauthorised parking, leading to congestion and safety hazards. The petitioners sought the court’s intervention to direct the municipal authorities to enforce parking regulations strictly and ensure the smooth flow of traffic in the area.

Respondents’ Arguments:

Representing the state, the counsel submitted that the authorities were actively monitoring the area and had taken action against approximately 830 illegally parked vehicles. They asserted that no permissions had been granted for illegal parking and that regular patrolling was being conducted to deter such activities. The state emphasised its commitment to maintaining order and addressing any violations promptly.

Court’s Judgment:

The Bombay High Court, while acknowledging the concerns raised by the petitioners, highlighted the importance of citizen participation in resolving civic issues. Chief Justice Aradhe remarked that public-spirited individuals should contribute to the solution rather than solely pointing fingers at authorities. He suggested that the petitioners undertake a campaign to create awareness among the public about the illegality and inconvenience of unauthorised parking. The court emphasised that mere allegations without substantial evidence were insufficient and encouraged the petitioners to provide concrete material to support their claims. The matter was adjourned to allow the petitioners time to consider initiating awareness campaigns and to gather relevant evidence.