Disposed

Smt. Nandini Ajay Marathe v. Union of India, through Ministry of Environment and Forest and Ors.

Bombay HC29 Feb 2012WP/1163/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought permission to withdraw a writ petition regarding permissions for bullock-cart races allegedly inconsistent with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The High Court allowed withdrawal with liberty to seek directions for a representation and time-bound decision by the Secretary.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed as withdrawn. Liberty to file a representation; representation to be decided within 8 weeks.

Smt. Nandini Ajay Marathe Vs Union of India, through… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

wp1163.12

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1163 OF 2012

¶6

Smt.Nandini Ajay Marathe : Petitioner V/s. Union of India, Through Ministry of Environment and Forest & Ors. : Respondents

¶7

With

¶8

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.523 OF 2012 In

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO.1163 OF 2012

¶10

Smt.Nandini Ajay Marathe : Petitioner V/s. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forest & Ors. : Respondents And Shri Digambar Dadaji Gurpude : Applicant

¶11

Mr.Ravindra Lokhande for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr.V.S.Gokhale, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos.2 & 3.

¶13

Mr.I.M.Khairdi for the applicant in C.A. No.523 of 2012.

¶14

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

¶15

DATE : FEBRUARY 29, 2012.

1 of 3

wp1163.12

P.C.:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶21

The grievance of th petitioner is in respect of permission granted

¶22

to conduct bullock-cart race by the Collector or other revenue officers in the respective Gram Panchayats. The counsel for the petitioner states that such permissions are inconsistent with the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, as well as the notification issued by the Central Government in this regard. In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file a representation in this regard before the Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai, within two weeks and prays that the Secretary may be directed to decide the same within a stipulated period.

¶23

In the circumstances, we dispose of the petition as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. If a representation is made by the petitioner as referred to hereinabove, we direct the Secretary of the concerned Department to consider and decide the same, in accordance with law and procedure applicable in this regard within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the said representation.

2 of 3

wp1163.12

In view of the order passed in the Writ Petition, Civil Application No.523 of 2012 stands disposed of.

¶28

(D. D. SINHA, J.)

¶29

(SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)

¶30

3 of 3

¶31

Suundaresan

Smt. Nandini Ajay Marathe v. Union of India, through Ministry of Environment and Forest and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Nandini Ajay Marathe v. Union of India, through Ministry of Environment and Forest and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kolhapur District Central Co-Operative Bank Limited, through Manager, Recovery and Legal Section Vs the Union of India, through Ministry of Food, Agriculture, Community Development and Corp. and Ors.

Wireless Tt Info Services Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mr. Ashfaq Abdul Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Hanmant Dnyanu Thorat and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra, Dept of Industry, Energy and Labour and Ors.

Shri. Milind Shripad Date Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hanmant Dnyanu Thorat and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra, Dept of Industry, Energy and Labour and Ors.