Disposed

Ganpat Gangaram Ingale and Another v. Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Limited, (M.S.E.T.C.L) Thr. Chief Engineer

Bombay HC17 Feb 2012WP/5170/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the Writ Petition on the ground that the petition was filed at a belated stage regarding transmission towers erected in 1995. The Court directed the petitioners to seek compensation from the concerned authority. No opinion on the merits was expressed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to approach the concerned authority for compensation within one month; respondent to decide within two months. Petition disposed.

Ganpat Gangaram Ingale and Another Vs Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Limited, (M.S.E.T.C.L) Thr. Chief Engineer — Bombay HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1/2

¶2

17.02.wp.5170.11

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PEITITION NO. 5170 / 2011 (Ganpat Gangaram Ingale and another vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Limited )

¶5

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

¶6

Mr.A.R.Ingole, Adv.for petitioner

¶7

Mr R E Mohariri, Adv. for respondent

¶8

CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR & P.B.VARALE, JJ. DATED : 17^th February, 2012.

¶9

Heard.

¶10

Considering the fact that the transmission towers in question were already erected as back as in 1995 and were made functional too, as submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, the prayer made by the petitioners cannot be granted at such a belated stage. However if appropriate compensation is not paid as yet, for determination of compensation, the petitioners to approach the concerned authority by way of representation along with necessary documents. On receipt of the same, the respondent is directed to decide the same in accordance with law and procedure applicable in this regard. The petitioners to approach the concerned authority within one month from today. The concerned authority shall take a decision on the said representation in accordance with law and procedure

¶11

2/2

¶12

17.02.wp.5170.11

¶13

applicable in this regard within a period of two months thereafter, taking into consideration the Government Resolution dated 1^st November, 2010, if applicable.

¶14

It is made clear that we have not expressed

¶15

any opinion on the merits of the matter.

¶16

Subject to what is stated above, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶17

JUDGEJUDGE

¶18

sahare

Ganpat Gangaram Ingale and Another v. Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Limited, (M.S.E.T.C.L) Thr. Chief Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganpat Gangaram Ingale and Another v. Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Limited, (M.S.E.T.C.L) Thr. Chief Engineer

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

Prashant S/O Bhimrao Kapse and Ors. Vs the Chairman, Nagpur Improvement Trust and Ors.

Eknath S/O Gulabrao Mahure Vs Amar Education Society, Takalghat, Nagpur and Ors.

Mayur S/O Ramkrishnarao Hedau Vs the State of Mah.Thr.Secy.Ministry of Tribal and 2

Smt. Preety W/O Shri Vijay Chattani Earlier Known as P Poptani Vs Nagpur University Thr. Its Registrar and Anr.

Shri Shivaji Education Society, through Its Secretary and Another Vs the Maharashtra State Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board,Thr. Divisional Secretary and

Dr. Sayyad Numan S/O Sayyad Khudaddad Hussaini Vs the Member, Maharashtra Administrative Court, Nagpur and 3 Others