Dismissed

Shiral Kondhe Pani Sangharsha Samiti and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Feb 2007PIL/39/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL concerning excavation of sand from the Vashishthi river bank was dismissed by the court. The court noted that respondents had obtained necessary permissions for sand storage, rendering the petition infructuous and unnecessary for further pursuit.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as infructuous in view of permissions obtained by respondents.

Shiral Kondhe Pani Sangharsha Samiti and Ors. Vs… — Environment and Pollution | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

-1-

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 Appellate Side
 PIL No.39 of 2004

¶3

 Shiral Kondhe Pani Sangharsha
 Samiti & ors. .. .. Petitioners
 v/s.

¶4

 The State of Maharashtra & ors. .. Respondents
 Mr.A.B.Tajne h/f Mr.G.S.Godbole for petitioners.
 Ms.Jyoti Pawar, Addl.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to
 6.

¶5

 Mr.S.M.Railkar for respondent 7(A) & (B).

¶6

 -----

¶7

CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE, ACTING C.J. &
V.M. KANADE, J.

¶8

DATED : 14th February 2007

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶11

 2. This Petition is filed to challenge the
 excavation of sand from the bank of river viz.
 Vashishthi at Chiplun, District Ratnagiri and the
 use of lands for the purpose of storage of sand.
 Initially, an ad-interim order was granted which
 was vacated later on. Now, a necessary permission
 has been obtained by respondent Nos.8 to 10 in
 whose lands the sand is being stored. They have
 undoubtedly no objection to the sand being stored.

¶12

 3. The relevant permission was shown to us on
 the last date by Mr.Railkar appearing for

¶13

-2-

¶14

 respondent Nos.7(A) and 7(B) and, therefore,

¶15

 Mr.Godbole appearing for the petitioners had taken
 time to seek instructions from the petitioners as
 to whether they are still interested in pursuing
 the matter.

¶16

 4. Today, Mr.Tajne holding for Mr.Godbole
 informs that he has not received any instructions.
 However, in view of the permission obtained by
 respondent Nos.8 to 10, there is no reason to
 continue this Petition any more. Petition is,
 therefore, dismissed.

¶17

 5. In view of the dismissal of the main
 Petition, nothing survives in Civil Application
 No.1252 of 2004 taken in this Petition and the

¶18

 same is dismissed as rendered infructuous.

¶19

(ACTING C.J.)

¶20

(V.M. KANADE, J.)

Shiral Kondhe Pani Sangharsha Samiti and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiral Kondhe Pani Sangharsha Samiti and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Keval Dhone Vs Thomas English School and 5 Ors.

Electronic Co-Operative Estate Ltd. and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Nitin Shrikrishna Tendulkar and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dattatray Pirgonda Patil Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

mrs sheila vishanath Vs state of maharashtra

arvind kamat and Anr. Vs the mumbai port trust and Anr.

Madhavrao Anantrao Wagh. Vs the Union of India

Meera Sadanand Kamath and Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay and 10 Ors.

Shyamkant Kailas Thakur Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sulan S/O. Bajirao Deokar Vs the Chairman - Kurdwadi Sikshan Prasarak Mandal and Ors.

Neelam Sharma Vs Jankalyan Sahakari Bank Ltd.

Dedhia Bhakti Heman Vs the Principal- St.Xaviers Institute of Education and Ors.

byculla zoo Vs the brihanmumbai muncipal corporation of gr. bombay ana Anr.

Shiral Kondhe Pani Sangharsha Samiti and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.