Baliram Fakru Mandhre and 22 Ors. v. Union of India Thru. Chief Secty. and 9 Ors.

Bombay HC7 Dec 2007WP/931/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by湖水 protectionists against coal mining leases allotted to respondents on lake areas. Upon the respondents tendering an undertaking to halt mining and obtain clearances, the Court allowed withdrawal, keeping statutory compliance and other issues open.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn following the respondents' undertaking not to commence mining work in the specified water bodies.

Baliram Fakru Mandhre and 22 Ors. Vs Union of… — Mining and Natural Resources | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶3

Writ Petition No. 931/2007

¶4

(Baliram Pakru Mandhre & others VERSUS Union of India & others)

¶5

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶7

- - - - -- Mr. Khajanchi, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Patil, counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. Dharmadhikari, counsel for the respondent nos.8 and 9.

¶8

CORAM : D.D.SINHA AND

¶9

SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 7, 2007.

¶10

Heard Mr. Khajanchi, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 and Mr.Dharmadhikari, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.8 and 9.

¶11

The counsel for the petitioner states that in the present petition the public cause is limited to the lake situated in Survey no.2 of Mouza Vijasan and and Survey no.47 of Mouza Nagrala, Tahsil Bhadravati. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the instant case, the respondent nos.8 and 9 have been allotted blocks of coal mining lease by respondent no. 1, Government of India. The area which is allotted includes area of these two lakes, and therefore, the

¶12

¶13

petitioners have come before this Court seeking appropriate direction.

¶14

During the pendency of the petition, the respondent nos.8 and 9 filed an undertaking dated 06.12.2007 wherein it is stated thus-----

¶15

“Respondents 8 and 9 hereby tender their unequivocal undertaking that they shall not commence any mining work in the two water bodies, one situated at Survey No.2, old Survey No.47, Mouza Vijasan, in Tahsil Bhadrawati comprising of an area of 20.72 Hectares and the other situated at Survey No. 24, Old Survey No.382, Mouza Nagrala, in Tahsil Bhadrawati comprising of an area of 4.74 Hectares, for a period of 8 weeks after all the environmental clearances and permissions required by law are obtained and duly intimated to the Petitioner's Counsel Mr. Mohit Khajanchi.”

¶16

The counsel for the petitioner states that in view of the above referred undertaking, the interest of the petitioner is protected, and therefore, prays to withdraw the instant petition.

¶17

We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsels, undisputed facts referred to hereinabove and the undertaking

¶18

¶19

dated 06.12.2007 filed by respondent nos.8 & 9.

¶20

In the circumstances, it appears that the grievance made by the petitioner appears to have been redressed at this stage.

¶21

Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn. Needless to mention that the concerned authorities are expected to follow all the statutory procedures and rules applicable in this regard before taking final decision in the matter. The issues raised in the petition are kept open.

¶22

JUDGE

¶23

JUDGE

¶24

APTE

Baliram Fakru Mandhre and 22 Ors. v. Union of India Thru. Chief Secty. and 9 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baliram Fakru Mandhre and 22 Ors. v. Union of India Thru. Chief Secty. and 9 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shankar Ninu Zambre Vs Nandura Edn. Society Thru. Manager and 3 Ors.

Goma Isan Nagarikar and Anor. Vs State of Mah. Thru. Collector and 2 Ors.

Vithoba Karu Nikhade @ Nikhare Vs State of Maha. Thru. Dist. Collector and 2 Ors.

Mrs. Mangala W/O Samuel Bhalerao and Anor. Vs the Education Officer (Secondary School), Z.P. and 2 Ors.

Sushila Bhojraj Hajare and Anor. Vs State of Mah. Thru. Collector and 3 Ors.

Jai Bhawani Mahila Vikas Shikshan Krida and Sanskrutik Mandal,Partapur,Thr Its President and Anor. Vs State of Mah.Thr.Its Secy and Ors.