Allowed

Madhukar Yallappa Cholekar Bachulkar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC28 Jan 2010PIL/64/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL regarding delayed framing of rules under the Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Preservation of Trees Act, 1975, the court disposed of the petition after the State Government assured compliance and filed an affidavit. The court directed tree authorities to display the rules on notice boards within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of; tree authorities directed to display the new rules on notice boards within 4 weeks.

Madhukar Yallappa Cholekar Bachulkar and Ors. Vs State of… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.64 OF 2009

¶5

Madhukar Yallappa Cholekar Bachulkar & Ors. .. Petitioners

¶6

Vs.

¶7

State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶8

Mr.U.P.Warunjikar i/b Mr.Rahul P. Walvekar for the petitioners

¶9

Mr.R.M.Kadam, Advocate General with Mr.R.P.Behere, Addl. G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 4

¶10

Mr.S.S.Patwardhan for respondent nos.2 and 3

¶11

Mr.V.C.Ghosalkar for respondent no.5

¶12

CORAM : J. N. Patel, Acting C.J., B.R.Gavai, J.

¶13

DATE : January 28, 2010

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

We were required to pass an order dt.21.01.2010 thereby issuing notice to the Deputy Director of Town Planning, Greater Mumbai and also the Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai as it was noticed by us that though specific assurance was given to this Court vide affidavit dated 21.08.2009, on behalf of the State Government that rules would be framed in the Winter Session and placed before both the houses of the legislature and that they will be given full effect to; nothing was done in

¶16

¶17

the matter.

¶18

Today, an affidavit in filed on record by Shri Jagannath Pandharinath Dange, Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32 so also Shri Sanjay Raghunth Kurvey, Deputy Director of Town Planning, Greater Mumbai. In both the affidavits, it has been categorically stated that rules were placed before both the houses on 22.12.2009. It has also been stated that the rules were published on 14.12.09 in the Official Gazette and came into effect forthwith on being notified. Reliance is placed on Section 22 of the Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Preservation of Trees Act, 1975 in support of the submission that the Rules come into effect as soon as they are published in the Official Gazette.

¶19

We were constrained to pass the order dt.21.01.2010 thereby issuing show cause notice to the Deputy Director of Town Planning, Greater Mumbai and also the Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai, since we noticed that inspite of specific assurance given to this court vide affidavit dt.21.08.09 that the rules would be framed in the Winter Session and placed before both the houses of the legislature and that they will be given full effect to; nothing was done in the matter and also the court was persuaded to dispose of the petition but nothing was done in the matter.

¶20

We were, therefore, prima facie of the view that an attempt was made to mislead the court by requesting the court to dispose of the petition by

¶21

¶22

accepting the statement.

¶23

Now, it transpires from the affidavit that the assurance given to this court in the affidavit dt.21.08.09 stood fully complied with and effect was given to the rules and they were also placed in the Winter Session of the Legislature. Had this fact been brought to our notice when the order was passed on 20.01.2010, it would not have been at all necessary to pass the said order. It is only on account of not giving the necessary information to this court, we were constrained to pass the aforesaid order.

¶24

Needless to state that the State Government is a major litigant before this court. It is expected that the officers of the State Government who instruct the Law Officers do so properly, so that the Law Officers can effectively properly assist the court in administration of Justice. We have come across various occasions when the officers of the State Government do not instruct their Law Officers representing them properly.

¶25

We have also noticed that on account of incomplete instructions, matters are required to be adjourned on various occasions, thereby resulting in wastage of valuable judicial time. Needless to state that this causes unnecessary burden on the public exchequer. As a major litigant, it is expected that the State Government, specially the officers who are deputed to instruct the Law Officers should have complete instructions in the matter, so that the Lawyers representing the State Government can effectively assist the court in

¶26

¶27

administration of Justice.

¶28

The present case is glaring example of the total lack of communication between the officers of the State Government and the learned Additional G.P. Had the learned Addl.G.P. been properly instructed in the matter, he would have informed the court about further steps taken in the matter and no orders would have been passed by us.

¶29

We may state that the court is not interested in issuing unnecessary show cause notices to the officers of the Government and particularly the Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra. However, it is only when the court finds that inspite of specific assurance given to this court, the State has not taken any steps in the matter.

¶30

We expect the Chief Secretary to personally look into the matter and see to it that the officers who are deputed to instruct the lawyers representing the State Government, at least in the matters which are pending before this court, are thorough with the progress in the matter and that they properly instruct the lawyers who in turn can effectively assist the court in the administration of Justice.

¶31

We expect that necessary steps would be taken by the Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, so that further embarrassment in the future would be avoided.

¶32

¶33

Authenticated copy of this order be supplied to the learned Addl.G.P. for communicating the same to the Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra.

¶34

In view of the affidavit filed by the Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra the grievance of the petitioner no more survives in as much as the rules have been given effect to. However, in order to enable the public at large to have access to the rules, a circular be issued to all the tree authorities in the State of Maharashtra, directing them to display the rules on the notice board of the offices of the Tree Authority, within a period of 4 weeks from today. Needless to state that the display would be at a prominent place, so that the citizens have an easy access to the same and made aware of the rules. In that view of the matter, we do not find that anything survives in the petition. The same is therefore, disposed of.

¶35

In so far as the grievance of the petitioner, relating to the permission granted by the Tree Authority of the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation for cutting the trees is concerned, we permit the petitioners to raise the said issue in an appropriate proceedings.

¶36

(ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶37

(B.R.GAVAI, J)

¶38

Madhukar Yallappa Cholekar Bachulkar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhukar Yallappa Cholekar Bachulkar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and 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

Janhit Manch and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rais Z Khan Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Rais Z Khan Vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Ganesh Vithal Nakhate Vs Bombay Municipal Corporation and 3 Ors.

Edrich Miranda Vs the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and 2 Ors.

Juhu Andheri Janata Mandal Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rizwan Ahmed Abdul Aziz and Ors. Vs the Commissioner-Malegaon Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Ramchandra Tukaram Ghodake Vs Sangli Miraj Kupwad City Corporation and Ors.

Ramesh Vitthal Chaudhary Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Babaso Yeshwant Kamble and Ors. Vs the Grampanchayat Nagaon and Ors.

Babaso Yeshwant Kamble and Ors. Vs the Grampanchayat Nagaon and Ors.

Madhukar Yallappa Cholekar Bachulkar and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rizwan Ahmed Abdul Aziz and Ors. Vs the Commissioner-Malegaon Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Indrajeet Vasantro Suryavanshi Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.