Shri Haridas Vishwanath Bawankule Vs State Government of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Industries, Energy and Labour Department and 5

Mr. T. D. Mandlekar, Advocate for petitioner in both the matters. Mr. P. D. Kothari, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 3 in both the matters. Mr. S.C. Mehadia for respondent no.2. Mr. S. K. Mishra, Asstt. Solicitor General for respondent nos.4 and 5.

¶10

CORAM: S. A. BOBDE AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATED: MARCH 6, 2012

¶11

Mr. Mehadia, the learned counsel for the PGCIL states

¶12

that the applications made to the District Magistrate under

¶13

Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 in both these

¶14

cases are in respect of wrong survey numbers or plots of land and not the lands over which the line is to pass. In regard to

¶15

the application in Writ Petition No. 801 of 2012, Mr. Mehadia states that the application is erroneous only in regard to the survey numbers where the tower is to be constructed. He however, submits that the PGCIL needs permission to enter

¶16

2

¶17

upon the survey number which is referred to in the application i.e. Survey No. 56. He, therefore, seeks leave to withdraw the applications made under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 with liberty to file fresh application before the District Judge, Nagpur.

¶18

Leave granted with liberty as prayed for.

¶19

In the circumstances, Mr. Mandlekar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks leave to withdraw the petitions as infructuous.

¶20

Leave granted and the petitions are allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition, if occasion arises.

¶21

JUDGE JUDGE

¶22

pandit

Shri Haridas Vishwanath Bawankule v. State Government of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Industries, Energy and Labour Department and 5

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Haridas Vishwanath Bawankule v. State Government of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Industries, Energy and Labour Department and 5

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

Nagpur Contractors Association Having Its Office at Ex.Engr.Premises,P.W.D. Vs the State of Mah.Thr.Chief SECY.MANTRALAYA,FORT,MUMBAI.32

Ambadas Rohya Pawar Vs Beby W/O Arjun Dandeet and Ors.

Ramchandra S/O Lakhuji Dhoke and 2 Ors. Vs State of Mah Thr. Sec. and 3 Ors.

Jayesh S/O Vilasrao Kulkarni Vs Union of India Thr. Director General (Post) and 3 Ors.

Shri Sopan Baliramji Gabhane Vs State Government of Maharashtra, through Secreary, Industries, Energy and Labour Department and 5

The Court on Its Own Motion Vs the Principal Secty. Urban Dev. Dept. and Ors.