Dismissed

Shivshai Pratishtan and Anr. v. the Municipalc Orpn. of Gr. Mumbai and Anr.

Bombay HC11 Aug 2008WP/2403/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged the relocation of a segregation plant and prayed for its closure. The court dismissed the writ, declining to interfere as the petitioner failed to show non-compliance or desire to initiate action.

What did the court decide?

No specific relief granted; the court directed that necessary action could be taken by the respondent if provisions were violated.

Shivshai Pratishtan and Anr. Vs the Municipalc… — Environment and Pollution | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 2741 OF 2007

¶4

Shivashahi Pratisthan & Anr.

¶5

..Petitioners

¶6

V/s.

¶7

The Municipal Corporation of
Greater Mumbai & Anr...Respondents

¶8

Mr. Manoj Patil i/by Mr. A.B. Vagyani for the
Petitioners
Mr. K.K. Singhavi, Sr.Adv. with Ms.A.K. Savla for
Respondent No.1
Ms. P.P. Tendulkar for Respondent No.2

¶9

CORAM : SHRI J.N.PATEL &
SHRI K.K.TATED, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 11ST AUGUST, 2008.

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

.Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The
learned counsel for the Petitioner pointed out to this
Court that Respondent No.1 by relocating segregation
plant at Lovegrow Pumping Station has caused hazards to
the residents of nearby area and, therefore, they prayed
the Municipal Commissioner for closure of the
segregation plant of the Lovegorve.

¶13

: 2 :

¶14

2.It is contended that the Respondent No.2 has
failed to take any cognizance of the same despite of the
fact that Petitioners have lodged protest with various
authorities and has relocated the segregation plant at
Lovegrove Pumping Station and, therefore, they should be
directed to close down the work of such segregation
plant.

¶15

3.The learned counselappearing for the

¶16

Respondent-MCGM states that the Municipal Corporation
would comply with the requirements of the Maharashtra
Pollution Control Board in terms of their notice dated
04.3.2008. Even otherwise nothing prevents Respondent
No.2 from taking action against the officials of the
MCGM, in case for non-compliance of their notice.
Therefore, in our view, no purpose would be served by
entertaining in this Petition, wherein the Petitioners
have specifically sought the relief that the Respondent
be directed and / or to discharge their duties under the
Environmental Protection Act, and the Municipal Solid
Waste Management (M & H) Rules, 2000.

¶17

4.In so far as the reliefs sought for by the
Petitioners against Respondent No.1-MCGM not to shift,

¶18

: 3 :

¶19

relocate or start or commence the segregation unit of
the refuge or the solid waste at Lovegrove or in the
open space near or around Lovegrove is concerned, if the
same has not been done in accordance with the provisions
of the Environment Protection Act and the Municipal
Solid Waste Management Rules, 2000, Respondent No.2 is
at liberty to initiate necessary action the in the
matter.

¶20

5.Therefore, this Petition stands disposed off

¶21

accordingly.

Shivshai Pratishtan and Anr. v. the Municipalc Orpn. of Gr. Mumbai and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivshai Pratishtan and Anr. v. the Municipalc Orpn. of Gr. Mumbai and Anr.

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

Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Venkat T. Pal and Ors. Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors.

Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Villayati Ram Mittal Vs Slum Rehabilitation Authority

Sumer Tower No. 5 Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 5 Ors.

Speedy Multimedia Limited and Anr. Vs Tariff Authority for Major Ports