Disposed

Goa Foundation,through Its Secretary, Dr. Claude Alvares, Mapusa Goa. v. State of Goa through Chief Secretary and 5 Ors.

Bombay HC24 Jan 2012WP/85/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition seeking direction to ban sponge iron plants near rivers and quash consent orders was disposed of. The Court found no cause of action existed as the State Government policy already prohibited such plants in the specified areas.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of as cause of action in respect of prayers for ban and quashing did not survive due to existing State Government policy prohibiting such plants.

Goa Foundation,through Its Secretary, Dr. Claude… — Environment and Pollution | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO. 85 OF 2006

¶3

GOA FOUNDATION,THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, DR. CLAUDE ALVARES, MAPUSA GOA. ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF GOA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND 5 ORS., ... Respondents

¶4

... Respondents

¶5

Mrs. Norma Alvares, Advocate the petitioner. Mr. S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Mr. M. Salkar, Government Advocate for respondent nos.1 and 6. Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate with Mr. D. Lawande, Advocate for respondent no.2. Mr. Y. V. Nadkarni, Advocate for respondent nos.3 to 5. Mr. N. Sardessai, Advocate for respondent nos.7 and 8.

¶6

Coram:A. P. LAVANDE &

¶7

U. V. BAKRE, JJ.

¶8

Date:24th January, 2012

¶9

P.C.

¶10

Heard Mrs. Alvares, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S. S. Kantak, learned Advocate General for respondent nos.1 and 6, Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, learned Senior Counsel for respondent no.2, Mr. Y. V. Nadkarni, learned Counsel for respondent nos.3 to 5 and Mr. Sardessai, learned Counsel for respondent nos.7 and 8.

¶11

By this petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs :

¶12

(i) For an order or an order in the nature of a writ directing the State Government not to allow any sponge iron plant within the catchment area and/ or 1 km of any river or stream classed as A or C in Goa;

¶13

(ii) For an order or an order in the nature of a writ, quashing the consent to establish dated 21.5.2004 granted to respondent no.3 by the State Pollution Control Board;

¶14

(iii)For an order directing the complete closure or relocation of the plant of respondent no.3;

¶15

(iv) Pending final hearing of this petition, for an order directing the respondent no.2 to revoke its consent order dated 4th April, 2008 issued to the respondent no.3;

¶16

(v) Pending final hearing of this petition, for an order restraining the respondent no.3 from operating the plant;

¶17

(vi)Pending final hearing of this petition, for on order directing the respondent nos.3, 4 and 5 to collect all the hazardous and other solid waste deposits and bring them back within the factory compounds and report compliance;

¶18

(vii)Pending final hearing of this petition, for an order restraining respondent nos.4 and 5 from operating their plants till they are in compliance with the consent terms;

¶19

(viii)Pending final hearing of this petition, for an order directing the respondent no.2 to inform this Court whether the respondent nos.4 and 5 have set up landfills for solid inert waste as required by their consent terms;

¶20

(ix) For costs of this petition;

¶21

(x) For any other reliefs this Court may be pleased to grant in the interest of justice and environment protection.

¶22

Mrs. Alvares, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the affidavit dated 18th January, 2012 filed by respondent no.3, the cause of action in respect of prayer clause nos.(ii) and (iii) does not survive.

¶23

Insofar as the prayer clause no.(i) is concerned, Mr. Kantak, learned Advocate General states that in terms of the decision of the State Government in force at present, no sponge iron plant is permitted within the catchment area and/ or 1 Kilometre of any river or stream classed as A or C in Goa. The statement made by learned Advocate General is accepted.

¶24

In view of the statement made by learned Advocate General, the cause of action in respect of prayer clause no.(i) also does not survive.

¶25

In view of the above, Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶26

A. P. LAVANDE, J.

¶27

U. V. BAKRE, J.

¶28

SMA

Goa Foundation,through Its Secretary, Dr. Claude Alvares, Mapusa Goa. v. State of Goa through Chief Secretary and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Goa Foundation,through Its Secretary, Dr. Claude Alvares, Mapusa Goa. v. State of Goa through Chief Secretary and 5 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

Mr. Martinho Rocha., Vs State of Goa through Its Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.

Dr. Ketan Govekar and Anr., Vs the State of Goa, through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Goa, Secretariat, Bardez and 2 Ors.

Maria a. Pires and 4 Ors., Vs the State of Goa through Chief Secretary and 6 Ors.

Pandurang Naik,Sanvordem-Goa and 4 Ors., Vs State of Goa through the Chief Secretary and 6 Ors.

Goa Foundation through Its Secretary, Dr Claude Alvares, Mapusa Goa. Vs State of Goa through Chief Secretary and 7 Ors.

Shri. Pandurang Naik and 4 Ors., Vs Jain Udyog and 5 Ors.