Petition alleging illegal sand excavation rejected as authorities had already seized vehicles and recovered fine; respondent Grampanchayat approved auction.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
PIL 52/11
1
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.52/2011 Maruti Ukandi Ingole V/s The State & others.
_______________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders |
Shri Dasalkar Rajendra, Advocate for petitioner. Shri S.K. Tambe, AGP for respondent nos.2, 4 & 6. Shri S.G. Joshi, Advocate for respondent nos.3 & 5. Respondent no.7 served.
CORAM: B.R. GAVAI & M.T. JOSHI, JJ.
Date: 14.12.2011
Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
The grievance in the present petition is that there is an illegal excavation of sand in Dhanora Tq.Jintur. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos.2 & 4, it is found that the authorities have found that six persons were indulging in excavating sand from Repa river illegally and as such the six vehicles were seized and an amount of Rs.
PIL 52/11
2
62,000/- was recovered as fine. It is further submitted in the affidavit in reply that for the present year, the Grampanchayat itself has now given its approval for auctioning the sand. As to what should be the penal amount has to be determined on the basis of the parameters laid down in the relevant provisions. We do not possess any expertise in that respect nor the petitioner possesses expertise as to how much should be the fine amount. In that view of the matter, since the respondents have already taken action by seizing the vehicles and recovering the penalty amount, we do not find that any purpose would be served in keeping the petition pending. Hence, the petition is rejected.
(M.T. Joshi, J.) (B.R. Gavai, J.) Dt/- 14.12.2011 ndk/c14121136
Maruti Ukandi Ingole
The State
B.R. GAVAI
M.T. JOSHI
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
