Disposed

Ajim Abbas Mulani v. the State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary, Govt of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Jun 2014PIL/145/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This resolution relies on an affidavit from the Sub-Regional Officer of the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board confirming valid consents and monitoring for sugar and distillery units. The court accepts these statements and directs the Board to initiate action for any future breaches, keeping petitioner remedies open.

What did the court decide?

Petitions disposed of based on affidavit confirmation; remedies kept open if breaches occur without Board action.

Ajim Abbas Mulani Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary, Govt of Maharashtra and Ors. — Bombay HC (2014) — LawSathi Research

ash

pil-145,14,71n101

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.145 OF 2012 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.14 OF 2010 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.71 OF 2013 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.101 OF 2013

¶5

PIL NO.145 OF 2012

¶6

Ajim Abbas Mulani .. Petitioner Vs State of Maharashtra and Others. .. Respondents –

¶7

PIL NO.14 OF 2010

¶8

Abdul Gagadu Shikalgar and Anr. .. Petitioners Vs Pandurang Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana & Others. .. Respondents

¶9

PIL NO.71 OF 2013

¶10

Sandeep Suresh Ghadge .. Petitioner Vs Pandurang Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana & Others. .. Respondents

¶11

PIL NO. 101 OF 2013

¶12

Shri Vishvas Bhaooso Jadhav and Anr. .. Petitioners Vs The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents –

¶13

Shri Milind Deshmukh for the Petitioners in PIL No.145 of 2012. Shri Prabhakar Jadhav for the Petitioners in PIL No.14 of 2010. Shri R.M. Haridas for the Petitioners in PIL No.71 of 2013. Shri Santram A. Tarale for the Petitioners in PIL No.101 of 2013. Shri V.P. Malvankar, AGP 'A' Panel for the State in all the PILs.

¶14

Ms. Rekha Panchal for Respondent Nos.2, 8 and 9 in PIL No.145 of 2012, for Respondent No.15 in PIL No.14 of 2010, for Respondent Nos.5 and 6 in PIL No.101 of 2013.

¶15

Shri P.B. Shah i/by Shri Kayval P. Shah for Respondent No.5 in PIL No.145 of 2012, for Respondent No.1 in PIL No.71 of 2013 and for Respondent No.2 in

ash

pil-145,14,71n101

PIL No.101 of 2013.

CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ DATED : 20TH JUNE 2014

¶21

P.C.

¶22

. We have perused the affidavit of Shri Devidas Koparkar, the

¶23

SubRegional Officer of the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, Solapur, which is affirmed on 5^th June 2014. Paragraph 2 of the said affidavit records that there is a valid renewal of consent by the said Board to the Sugar & CoGeneration Unit which is valid upto 30^th October 2014. As far as the Distillery Unit is concerned, there is a renewal of consent which is to operate till 31^st August 2014. Clause (II) of paragraph 2 of the said affidavit records the actions taken by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board. Clause (5) of the affidavit records that the Pollution Control Board through its Officers has been regularly monitoring both the units and the statements showing the results of the analysis of the samples collected from the Sugar & Co generation units of the second Respondent have been enclosed with the affidavit. It is stated that the Distilleries of the first Respondent are not generating any effluent on account of zero discharge condition imposed upon them by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board. It is stated that the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board is also involved in the air monitoring and a statement showing the results of air monitoring have been enclosed with the affidavit. We accept the

¶24

ash 3 pil-145,14,71n101

¶25

statements made in the said affidavit. It is obvious that the Respondent Board through its Officers will have to regularly monitor the activities of both units. If any breaches are committed, the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board shall forthwith initiate action in accordance with law.

¶26

In the event the Petitioners notice any breach, it will be open for the Petitioners to point out the said breaches to the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board. In the event, no action is taken by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, remedies of the Petitioners are kept open.

¶27

Subject to what is observed above, the Petitions are

¶28

disposed of.

Ajim Abbas Mulani v. the State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary, Govt of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajim Abbas Mulani v. the State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary, Govt of Maharashtra and 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

Sopanrao Pandhrinath Nikam Vs State of Maharashtra

Tatyaba L. Jadhav and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dagadkhan Asanghatit Kamgar, Vikar Parishad, through President, Bastu Moti Rege Vs State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Revenue and Ors.

Ketan Tirodkar Vs State of Maharashtra, through Chief Minister and Anr.

Gurdino Jiwatram Kukreja Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ramchandra Baburao Kachare and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ramchandra Baburao Kachare and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Prashant N. Keluskar Vs Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Shri Basaweshwar Vividh Karyakari Co-Op. Society Ltd, through Chairman, Shri. Sadashiv R. Chougule Vs Union of India, through Ministry of Finance and Ors.

Shri. Sakharam Mahadev Jadhav Vs the Chief Executive Officer, Kulgaon-Badkapur Nagarparishad, Kulgaon and Ors.

Shri. Bhaskar Govind Bhong and Ors. Vs the Secretary, the State Transport Authority and Ors.

Sandeep Suresh Ghadge Vs Pandurgang Sahakari Sakhar Karkhanan Ltd. and Ors.

Sandeep Suresh Ghadge Vs Pandurgang Sahakari Sakhar Karkhanan Ltd. and Ors.

Avinash Pandharinath Gunjal Vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Home Dept. and Ors.