Disposed

Meera Sanyal and Anr. v. Union of India and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC25 Sept 2014PIL/113/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged MPCB's consent to operate for Mumbai Port Trust regarding coal handling, seeking an injunction against renewal. The court disposed of the PIL, directing MPCB to treat the memo as a representation and consider MPT's response before renewing the consent.

What did the court decide?

Public Interest Litigation disposed with direction to treat PIL as representation and allow response before deciding on renewal of consent.

Meera Sanyal and Anr. Vs Union of India and 3 Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2014)

dssherla

908-pill-111-14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (L) NO.111 OF 2014

¶7

Smt. Meera Sanyal and anr. .. Petitioners. vs. Union of India through Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi and ors. .. Respondents.

¶8

Mr. Kusumakar Kaushik for Petitioners. Dr. G.R. Sharma with D.P. Singh for Respondent No.1-UOI. Mr. Milind More, AGP for Respondent No.2-State. Ms Rekha Panchal a/w. Mr. Umesh Yadav for Respondent No.3. Mr. Vishal Talsania i/b Motiwala & Co for Respondent No.4.

¶9

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & M.S.SONAK, J. DATE : 25 SEPTEMBER 2014

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

Two public spirited citizens in Mumbai have moved this Court for challenging the consent to operate order dated 14 October 2013 granted by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) to Mumbai Port Trust (MPT), particularly, in the matter of coal handling at Haji Bunder or at any other place in Mumbai Port Lands. The said consent to operate order is going to expire on 30 September 2014 and the petitioners have therefore prayed for an injunction to restrain the MPCB from renewing/extending the consent to operate beyond 30 September 2014.

1 of 2

dssherla 2

908-pill-111-14

2] Having regard to the nature of grievances voiced in the public interest litigation, it would be just and proper to direct that MPCB shall treat the memo of this public interest litigation as a representation.

¶16

3] Accordingly, the public interest litigation is disposed of with a direction to MPCB-respondent No.3 to treat the memo of this public interest litigation as a representation and to take the same into consideration before taking any decision on the proposal of MPT - respondent No.4 for renewal/extension of the consent to operate order. It goes without saying that the MPT will also be allowed to submit their response to the representation and such response shall be given within two weeks from today and thereafter MPCB shall consider the proposal of MPT for renewal/ extension of the consent to operate.

¶17

4] It is clarified that we have not gone into the merits of the controversies sought to be raised in this public interest litigation and it will be open to the petitioners to move this Court again, if and when required.

¶18

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶19

2 of 2

Meera Sanyal and Anr. v. Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meera Sanyal and Anr. v. Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Dilip D. Amane and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Co-Operation Marketing and Textile and Ors.

Shri. Dilip D. Amane and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Co-Operation Marketing and Textile and Ors.

Mr. Amit Mehra Vs the State of Maharashtra Thru the Principal Secretary and 4 Ors.

Arvind S/O Hiraman Gajbhiye Vs State of Maha.,Thr. Sec. Min.of Revenue and Forest Deptt., and Thr.Pri. Sec.Min.of Env.Deptt. and 4

Praful Vithal Loke Vs Election Commission of India and Ors.

Shri. Chandrakant Keshav Palav Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Sub Divisional Officer and Anr.

Rajasthan Sanskriti Sanrakshan Sanstha and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Baburaon Ajabrao Deshmukh, and Another Vs the Collector, Buldana, and 5 Others

Shahnaz Jahan Saeed and Anr. Vs Union of India, through Joint Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs (Haj Cell) and Ors.

Goldmines Telefilms Pvt. Ltd. Vs Reliance Big Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Maharashtra State Scale Industries Development Corporation Vs M/S Thakkar Warehousing Agency

Transport Commissioner, Maharashtra State Vs Miss. Neelima D/O Anant Surve

Sanjay Kumar Lalit Vs the Union of India and 2 Others

Ram Baburao Salve Vs the Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay and Ors.