Disposed

Ashokrao Nathrao Dahiphale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC11 Nov 2014PIL/114/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Challenge to a PIL regarding the diversion of water stored in Renapur Dam to Latur city instead of projecting villages. High Court, finding petitioner lacked relevant guidelines to prove malafides, directed the Collector to supply them within two weeks to enable a detailed representation.

What did the court decide?

The Collector directed to supply State Government guidelines regarding water reservation to the petitioner within two weeks.

Ashokrao Nathrao Dahiphale Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

(1) PIL No. 114 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

Public Interest Litigation No. 114 of 2014

¶4

Ashokrao s/o. Nathrao Dahiphale, Age : 55 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Bhadarwadi, Taluka : Renapur, District : Latur. .. Petitioner.

¶5

versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra, Through Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.

¶7

The Secretary, Irrigation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶8

The Collector, Latur.

¶9

Executive Engineer, Medium Project Division, Latur.

¶10

Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Latur.

¶11

.. Respondents.

¶12

Mr. N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. G.R. Ingole, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 3.

¶14

(2) PIL No. 114 of 2014

¶15

Mr. S.C. Arora, Advocate, for respondent no.4.

¶16

Mr. Umakant V. Wagh, Advocate, instructed by Mr. A.V. Hon, Advocate, for respondent no.5.

¶17

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & A.M. BADAR, JJ.

¶18

DATE : 11TH NOVEMBER 2014

¶19

PER COURT'S ORDER (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) :

¶20

Heard Adv. Mr. N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar for the petitioner, learned AGP Mr. G.R. Ingole for respondent nos.1 to 3, Adv. Mr. S.C. Arora for respondent no.4, and Adv. Mr. U.V. Wagh for respondent no.5.

¶21

Challenge is to a decision to reserve water stored in Renapur Dam as drinking water and to make it available also to the residents of Latur city due to scarcity.

¶22

Adv. Mr. Patil Jamalpurkar submits, that the Dam has been constructed with a view to provide drinking water to 60 villages in the vicinity and water for irrigation. He contends that, thus, this water cannot be diverted to a distant city like Latur. According to him, an alternate dam / facility was being considered as a source of drinking water for Latur, but under political pressure, it was given up and Renapur Dam has been highhandedly selected.

¶23

(3) PIL No. 114 of 2014

¶24

The learned Assistant Government Pleader, as also, respective Advocates for the respondents, are disputing this.

¶25

The learned Assistant Government Pleader is seeking time to file reply. However, during arguments, we find that the decision has been taken in a meeting at District level on 18-7-2014. The Committee for the said purpose was constituted under the chairmanship of the Guardian Minister. The notification impugned is dated 21-7-2014 and it is issued by the Collector implementing that decision.

¶26

Adv. Mr. Arora for respondent no.4 points out that the respondent no.4 is basically entrusted with liability of maintenance of the Dam and is in no way concerned with making of distribution policy.

¶27

The impugned order refers to decision of Committee, as also, guidelines issued by the State Government for reserving such water. Adv. Mr. Patil Jamalpurkar very fairly stated that efforts were made to procure those guidelines, but the authorities did not cooperate and he could not get the same.

¶28

It appears, that before that, on 3rd July 2014, on the subject of water scarcity, Collector, Latur, has issued a general order stopping illegal lifting of water from all projects in the District.

¶29

In this situation, the impugned decision dated 21-7-2014 appears to be a policy decision. The petitioner, though has made a representation, his representation is not backed by the relevant guidelines.

¶30

(4) PIL No. 114 of 2014

¶31

Even approach before this Court in writ jurisdiction, is in absence of advantage of perusal of those guidelines.

¶32

Interest of justice, therefore, can be met with, by directing respondent no.3 - Collector to supply guidelines to the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from today. We direct the petitioner or on his behalf, a representative, to contact office of Collector on 25-11-2014 for the said purpose. After receipt of guidelines, the petitioner shall submit appropriate representation in detail, pointing out his plight or alleging mala fides, if any, within further period of two weeks. After receipt of such representation, the Collector shall look into it, in accordance with law, within further period of three weeks.

¶33

Leaving all rival contentions open and with these directions, we dispose of the Petition. No costs.

¶34

( A.M. BADAR ) ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶35

puranik / PIL114.14

Ashokrao Nathrao Dahiphale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashokrao Nathrao Dahiphale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Vijay Kadu Parkhe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dr. Vijay Dinkarrao Shinde and Ors. . Vs State of Mah. and Anr. .

Dr. Vijay Dinkarrao Shinde and Ors. . Vs State of Mah. and Anr. .

Chembur Shopkeepers Association Vs Mumbai Metropolitan Rgional Development Authority and 3 Ors.

Kakaso Sadashiv Mahamuni and Anr. Vs Grampanchayat Umbraj and Ors.

Kakaso Sadashiv Mahamuni and Anr. Vs Grampanchayat Umbraj and Ors.

Aam Aadmi Lok Manch through Founder Shri. P.P. Goyal Vs Pune Cantonment Board, Pune

Ankush Rangnath Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vaijinath Manik Sable and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Santosh Padmaji Jain Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Nitin Pandit Sagat Vs Ribeka Nitin Sagat

Shri Gurudatta Shaikshanik and Sanskrutik Trust, Deopur Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Alka Bhimrao Dandge Vs Prabhakar Dharmaji Borde

Omkar Girish Apte @ Omkar Abhaykumar Kulkarni and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others