Dismissed

Shri. Sandeep Dattatraya Walunj v. Western Region Transmission (Maharashtra) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC30 Apr 2014PIL/167/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court declined to entertain a PIL regarding transmission tower installations due to serious doubts about the petitioner's bona fides, as only three farmers were named despite claims of widespread grievances. The court reserved the substantive issues for future reference.

What did the court decide?

PIL petition declined to be entertained and disposed of without deciding the merits of the challenge.

Shri. Sandeep Dattatraya Walunj Vs Western… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

k 30 pil 167.13.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.167 OF 2013

¶4

Shri Sandeep Dattatray Walunj

¶5

... Petitioner.

¶6

V/s.

¶7

Western Region Transmission (Maharashtra) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

¶8

... Respondents.

¶9

Mr. Uday B. Nighot for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. D.J. Kakaria, Senior Advocate a/w M/s. Mulla and Mulla and Craigie Blunt and Caroe for the Respondents.

¶11

CORAM: A.S. OKA & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : APRIL 30, 2014.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

1 Heard learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner.

¶14

2 The dispute is about installation of towers for the purposes of transmission lines. The Petitioner who claims to be a social worker who is doing hotel business has stated in the Petition that the agriculturists in nearby villages have been approaching him with grievances regarding erection of transmission Towers. He has purportedly filed this Petition for espousing the cause of others. It is necessary to make a reference to order dated 4^th April, 2014 passed by this Court. Clauses

¶15

1 to 4 of the said order read thus:

¶16

1/3

¶17

k 30 pil 167.13.doc

¶18

“1 The submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that several agriculturists whose lands have been affected by the erection of the transmission towers have been making a grievance to him.

¶19

2 There is a reply filed by the Respondent no.1 stating that work of laying of transmission line from Pune to Aurangabad and from Parli to Pune is already over and it is further stated that no objection was raised by any one to the survey conducted by the first respondent. Learned Counsel appearing for the first Respondent states that the transmission towers are already functional.

¶20

3 Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks time to file an affidavit setting out the names of the agriculturists who have made a grievance about the erection of transmission of towers.

¶21

4 The affidavit will also disclose whether the alleged aggrieved persons have accepted compensation from first Respondent. Affidavit to be filed within two weeks.”

¶22

3 On the basis of the statement made which is recorded in the said order, the Petitioner has filed an affidavit in the form of a Rejoinder. He has given names of only three persons from village Manjarewadi who approached him. The case of the Petitioner was that several agriculturists whose lands were affected by Towers have been making a grievance to him. In the affidavit, the Petitioner has stated that the said three named persons have been complaining about harassment by the

¶23

2/3

¶24

k 30 pil 167.13.doc

¶25

respondent no.4 at the instance of respondent nos.1 and 3. He has stated that compensation has been paid to the said three persons.

¶26

4 Thus, the Petitioner represented before this Court that several aggrieved agriculturists have been approaching to him with their grievances. The Petitioner after making a solemn statement before this Court has filed an affidavit setting out the names of agriculturists. He has come out with the case that only three agriculturists approached him who have even received compensation. Therefore, there is a serious doubt created about the bonafides of the Petitioner and the locus of the Petitioner. In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the challenge, we decline to entertain the Public Interest Litigation at the instance of the Petitioner. We however make it very clear that the issues raised by the Petitioner are expressly kept open. Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶27

katkam

¶28

3/3

Shri. Sandeep Dattatraya Walunj v. Western Region Transmission (Maharashtra) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Sandeep Dattatraya Walunj v. Western Region Transmission (Maharashtra) Pvt. Ltd. and 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

Ravindra Rajaram Sawant and Ors. Vs District Collector Sindhudurg and Ors.

Ravindra Rajaram Sawant and Ors. Vs District Collector Sindhudurg and Ors.

Shri. Prem Arun Joseph and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Prakash R. Lolekar Vs State of Maharashtra

Datta Shrikisan Wakade and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shirin Merchant Vs the Women and Child Welfare Deptt.

Maniklal Peerchand Lunawat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vishnu Garg Vs the Union of India, the Chief Sec. to the M.H.R.D. Goi and Anr.

Shri. Sanjay Annaso Gotkhinde and Ors. Vs Union of India, Ministry of Finance and Ors.

Kai. Bapusaheb Sarkar Vividh Karyakari Sahakari (Vikas) Seva Sanstha Ltd, Panori and Ors. Vs the Kolhapur District Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Jay Bharat Vividh Karyakari Sahakari (Vikas) Seva Sanstha Ltd, Talsande and Ors. Vs the Kolhapur District Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Mr. Appasha Ishwara Mali and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Dept.

Adhikrat Ration Dukandar Seva Mandal Vs the State of Maharashtra through Ist Principal Secretary and Ors.

Ashrafbanu Devjiyani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.