Disposed

Mohol Taluka Bahu-Udeshiya Shetkari Sangh, Mohol, through Chairman, Shankarrao Sathe v. the Secretary, State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Mar 2013PIL/60/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disposing a PIL regarding water scarcity, the Bombay High Court directed the petitioners to file a representation with the Maharashtra Water Resources Regulatory Authority and ordered the Authority to decide within 10 days. The court clarified it expressed no opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No. 3 to treat the PIL memo as a representation and decide within 10 days.

Mohol Taluka Bahu-Udeshiya Shetkari Sangh, Mohol, through Chairman, Shankarrao Sathe Vs the Secretary, State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Bombay HC (2013) — LawSathi Research

¶1

dgm 1

¶2

902-pil-60-13.sxw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 60 OF 2013

¶5

Mohol Taluka Bahu-Udeshiya Shetkari Sangh .... Petitioners

¶6

¶7

1 The Secretary, State of Maharashtra

¶8

2 The Department of Irrigation,

¶9

through its Secretary,

¶10

3 Maharashtra Water Resources Regulatory Authority .... Respondents

¶11

Mr. M. A. Choudhari for the petitioners. Mr. Prashant Darandale, AGP for respondents-State.

¶12

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.

¶13

DATE : March 06, 2013

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

In this public interest litigation, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus to direct respondent No.3-Maharahtra Water Resources Regulatory Authority to release water into the Ujjani dam from the dams which are upstream as per Section 12(6) (c ) of the Maharashtra Water Resources Regulatory Authority Act, 2005.

¶16

2 Looking to the subject matter of the grievance in this petition, it would be appropriate that the petitioners-Mohol Taluka Bahu-Udeshiya Shetkari Sangh, Mohol, taluka Mohol, District : Solapur, should first make a representation to respondent No.3-authority.

1/2

dgm 2

902-pil-60-13.sxw

3 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the grievances of the people have already been voiced before the authority as will be clear from the newspaper reports. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that people in the area also have started migrating because of acute water scarcity.

¶21

4 In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction that a copy of the memo of the PIL petition shall be treated by respondent No.3 as a representation and respondent No.3 will take a decision on the representation within 10 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the memo of PIL petition along with a copy of this order.

¶22

5 It is clarified that we may not be treated to have expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioners' grievances raised in this PIL petition.

¶23

6 All parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶24

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶25

(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

¶26

2/2

Mohol Taluka Bahu-Udeshiya Shetkari Sangh, Mohol, through Chairman, Shankarrao Sathe v. the Secretary, State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohol Taluka Bahu-Udeshiya Shetkari Sangh, Mohol, through Chairman, Shankarrao Sathe v. the Secretary, State of Maharashtra 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

Edwin Britto Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Dr. Bharat Shah Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

Hari C. Wadhwa and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra, through Home Dept, Govt. of Maharashtra and Ors.

Santosh Raosaheb Kakade and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Maharashtra State Handicap Employee/Officer Union Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Krishna Harischandra Rao and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Indradhanu the Non Governmental Organization Thr. Its Secty., and Anr. Vs the Union of India Thr. Its Pr. Secty., and 11 Ors.

Subhash Anant Joshi and Ors. Vs the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Suryakant Ramdas Patil Vs the Official Liquidator and Ors.

Suryakant Ramdas Patil Vs the Official Liquidator and Ors.

Edwin Britto Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

M/S.Saumya Builders Pvt.Ltd Vs Union of India and Ors.

Motinagar Co-Operative Housing Society Limited Vs M/S. Zenal Construction Pvt. Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Shri. Besil Barrato and Ors. Vs the Indian Hotel Company Employees Union and Ors.