Disposed

Shri. Ramchandra Warik v. the State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Industrial Development and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Aug 2012PIL/46/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that the present petition cannot be treated as a P.I.L. as issues under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act require individual applicants to agitate their specific grievances. The petition was disposed of with directions to individual applicants to approach the Collector.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; individual applicants directed to approach the Collector for orders under Section 28A.

Shri. Ramchandra Warik Vs the State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

2.pil.46.12.doc

¶2

RMA

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

P.I.L. (STAMP) NO. 31988 OF 2011

Ramchandra Warik

.. Petitioner

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents

¶9

Mr. Sagar Joshi for the Petitioner

¶10

Mr. S.R. Nargolkar, AGP for the State

¶11

CORAM : D. D. SINHA &

¶12

SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ

¶13

DATE : 15th MARCH, 2012.

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶16

2. The present petition is filed by the petitioner alleging that he is propogating public cause and seeking direction to respondent no. 2 to decide the applications filed by various farmers under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act within stipulated period.

¶17

3. Considering the issue involved, we are of the view that the present petition cannot be treated as P.I.L. since the applications under Section 28A of the said Act are required to be filed by the persons who are seeking enhancement of

¶18

Pg 1 of 3

¶19

2.pil.46.12.doc

¶20

compensation and therefore, it is for those individual applicants to agitate their grievance before the appropriate forum. It is also necessary to note that there is a procedure prescribed for filing application under Section 28A of the said Act and there is nothing before this Court to ascertain whether such procedure is followed by the persons whose cause is agitated by the petitioner.

¶21

4. Be that as it may, it is open for the applicants who have filed applications under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act to approach the Collector for necessary orders.

¶22

5. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶23

[ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J ] [ D. D. SINHA, J ]

¶24

2.pil.46.12.doc

¶25

jdk

¶26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PIL NO. 46 OF 2012

Ramchandra Warik

..Petitioner

Vs.

The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..Respondents

¶31

Mr. Sagar Joshi for petitioner Mr. S.R.Nargolkar GP for Respondents

¶32

CORAM : D.D.SINHA AND SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J J.

¶33

DATE : AUGUST 06, 2012.

¶34

P.C.:

¶35

The counsel for the petitioner brought to our notice that

¶36

in paragraph 5 this Court has observed that the Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly instead of P.I.L. In the circumstances, it be read as P.I.L. is disposed of accordingly.

¶37

[ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [ D.D.SINHA, J. ]

¶38

kandarkar

¶39

Pg 3 of 3

Shri. Ramchandra Warik v. the State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Industrial Development and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Ramchandra Warik v. the State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Industrial Development 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

Godavari Hatmag Vastra Nirman Sah Sanstha Vasarni Dist Nanded Thr President Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Jagdish Surjit Saini Vs the Returning Officer, for the General Election of the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Shri. Rajkumar Parmeshwar Koli and Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation, Solapur and Ors.

Shri. Rajkumar Parmeshwar Koli and Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation, Solapur and Ors.

Bahuudeshiya Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Uva Sanstha Thr. Its President Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty. and Ors.

Padmanabh S/O Gajrajsingh Thakur Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty., and Anr.

Janmanch Thr. Its Secty., Rajeev Gajanan Jagtap Vs State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty., and Ors.

Lillian Pais and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Aruna M.Shah Vs Oriental Bank of Commerce and Ors.

Manat Wine Centre Vs the Collector of Mumbai and Ors.

Vijay Shankar Khandale Vs the Chief Executive Officer, Pune Zilla Parishad, Pune and Ors.

Rev.Bathuel Ramchandra Tiwade Vs Rev.Dn.Albert Dattaoba Lonadhe and Ors.

Sonu Services, through Proprietor, Ashpak Gundumiya Agasapure Vs the Executive Engineer, Msedcl, O and M Division and Ors.

Jai Laxmi Construction Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.