Disposed

Lower Painganga Project Nirman Samassya Niwaran, and Punarwasan Sanstha,Yavatmal v. State of Mah.Revenue and Forest Dept.Mumbai and 6 Others

Bombay HC15 Oct 2008WP/2559/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disposed of a PIL seeking directions to expedite the Lower Painganga Project execution after the Centre accorded environmental clearance for the Maharashtra portion, holding the petition served its purpose.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed off as it served its purpose; matter remanded to State Government to take necessary steps for project execution.

Lower Painganga Project Nirman Samassya Niwaran, and… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

Writ Petition No.2559 of 2006.

¶5

Lower Paingamga Project Nirman Samassya Niwaran & Punarwasan

¶6

Sanstha.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and others.

¶9

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

¶10

ShriN.B.Bargat,Advocateforthe
petitioner.
Shri S. K. Mishra Advocate for R-5 & 6.

¶11

Coram: B. H. Marlapalle and A. H. JOSHI, JJ. Dated: 15^th OCTOBER 2008.

¶12

1.Mr.Gilda,LearnedCounsel
appearingforRespondentNo.3hasplaced
beforeusacopyoftheorderpassedbythe
MinistryofEnvironmentandForest,
GovernmentofIndiaon17-05-2007,and
addressedtotheSuperintendingEngineer,
YavatmalIrrigationCircleatYavatmal.
ThesaidorderstatesthattheMinistryof
EnvironmentandForesthasaccorded
environmentalclaimstotheLowerPainganga
ProjectonlyforMaharashtraportionasper
theprovisionsoftheEnvironmentalImpact
Assessment Notification 2006.

¶13

¶14

2.Thispetitionhasbeenfiledin
publicinterestseekingdirectionsto
expeditetheexecutionoftheLower
PaingangaProject.Mr.Gilda,theLearned
Counsel,statesthatinviewofthe
environmentalclearancegrantedbythe
GovernmentofIndiaaspertheorderdated
17-5-2007,RespondentNo.3hasalready
initiatedstepsfortheexecutionofthe
ProjectinsofarastheMaharasahtra
portionisconcernedincludingthesteps
forseekingsanctionsfortheescalated
costs even for the Maharashtra portion.

¶15

3.Weare,therefore,satisfiedthat
thispetitionhasserveditspurpose,and
itisfortheStateGovernmenttotake
necessarystepsfortheexecutionofthe
ProjectthroughRespondentNo.3
Corporation.Undoubtedly,theissueof
rehabilitationofthepersonslikelytobe
affectedbythesubjectProjectwillhave
tobetakenupbytheconcernedauthorities
at the appropriate stage.

¶16

4. Petition is disposed off.

¶17

JUDGE

¶18

Sbm

¶19

JUDGE

Lower Painganga Project Nirman Samassya Niwaran, and Punarwasan Sanstha,Yavatmal v. State of Mah.Revenue and Forest Dept.Mumbai and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lower Painganga Project Nirman Samassya Niwaran, and Punarwasan Sanstha,Yavatmal v. State of Mah.Revenue and Forest Dept.Mumbai and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Janraoji Wankhede Vs Maha. Animal and Fishery Sci. Uni. Thru. Its Registrar and 2 Ors.

Dr. Prashant Hemraj Parate Vs Directorate of Medical Education and Research Thru. Its. Director and 5 Ors.

Manrajsingh S/O Hardevsingh Sandhu Vs the Mah.State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education,Thr Its Divisional Secretary

Sk Sabgatullah Izatullah Jagirdar Vs State of Maha Thr Secretary and 3 Others

Pramod Shankarrao Donge Vs Trhe State of Mah.Thr.Secr.Mumbai and 4 Others

Ashok Champalal Yadav and 2 Ors. Vs State of Mah. Thru. Its. Secty. and 3 Ors.