- Case
- AMIT DHOLAKIA v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE MINISTRY OF CO-OPERATION AND 6 ORS (Bombay High Court, 14-01-2025)
- Law
- Constitution of India, Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act.
Facts: The petitioner, a resident of a cooperative housing society in Mumbai, sought permission to install an electric vehicle (EV) charging station in his garage. The society denied permission, citing a lack of policy regarding EV charging stations. The petitioner argued that the State Government and the Registrar of Cooperative Societies should exercise their powers under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, to ensure the provision of charging infrastructure, given the environmental benefits of EVs and the government's policy documents.
Procedural Posture: The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents, including the State Government, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, and the housing society, to facilitate the installation of EV charging infrastructure. The State contested the petition, raising a preliminary objection regarding the availability of an alternate statutory remedy under Section 91 of the MCS Act.
Issue: 1. Whether the respondents are obligated to facilitate the installation of EV charging infrastructure in cooperative housing societies, considering the environmental benefits of EVs and relevant government policies? 2. Whether the Registrar of Cooperative Societies has the power to direct amendments to the bye-laws of cooperative societies to ensure permission for installing EV charging stations? 3. Whether the denial of permission to install an EV charging station infringes upon the petitioner's constitutional right to enjoy his property under Article 300A of the Constitution?
Holding: The High Court directed the competent authorities to finalize the draft conditions/rules for the installation of charging stations in cooperative societies for electric vehicles expeditiously and on priority for implementation. The Court also directed Respondent no. 3 and/or authorities constituted under the MCS Act to take the necessary steps to circulate/communicate the finalized conditions/rules, as directed by us above, to all concerned, in a manner known to law and consider issuing necessary directions to the cooperative societies under the provisions of MCS Act, to appropriately amend their bye-laws, in accordance with the finalized conditions/rules.
Reasoning: The Court recognized the significance of promoting electric vehicles to reduce vehicular pollution and the need for a legal framework to support EV charging infrastructure. It referred to the Supreme Court's observations on sustainable development in Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd v. Bombay Environmental Action Group & Ors, emphasizing the importance of balancing development with ecological concerns. The Court acknowledged the State's awareness of the need for EV charging infrastructure, as evidenced by draft conditions for installing charging stations. While acknowledging the limitations of Article 226 in entering the legislative domain, the Court emphasized that a clean environment is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court directed the authorities to finalize and implement the draft rules for EV charging stations, recognizing the need for a robust statutory framework under Section 79A of the MCS Act.
