Disposed

Balasaheb Raghunath Jagtap and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Dec 2014PIL/19/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a PIL alleging unauthorized sand excavation. Pending due to uncompleted service on respondents, the Court allowed petitioners to seek an inquiry based on photographic evidence of JCB/suction pump usage and directed the State to investigate post-2011 allotments and contraventions.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to move representation for enquiry regarding uncontroverted photographic evidence of unauthorized excavation; State directed to investigate post-2011 allotments and contraventions.

Balasaheb Raghunath Jagtap and Ors. Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

{1}

¶2

917 sr. no..odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 19 OF 2011

¶5

BALASAHEB RAGHUNATH JAGTAP AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶6

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Niteen V. Gaware. Mr. V.D. Godbharle, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶7

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & A.M. BADAR, JJ. DATE : 17TH DECEMBER, 2014.

¶8

PER COURT:

¶9

1] Respondent No.6 who is alleged to have used JCB Machines and other instruments like Suction Pumps for excavation of sand in contravention of the terms and conditions of allotment order, is not served in this PIL, though period of 3 years has expired after this Court issued notices. The office endorsement dated 2.4.2011 shows that service reports of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were awaited. Thereafter, matter was not listed and thus, petitioners have not paid any attention to it. Not only this, respondent No.5 Village Panchayat is not also served.

¶10

2] While issuing notice, this court directed the State Government to find out whether respondent No.6 is using any machinery. The Nayab Tahsildar has filed reply affidavit on 8.4.2011, stating that there was no water in the river bed and since 2 months prior to affidavit, there was no excavation, either manually or through JCB. He has also placed on record the Panchanama. Petitioners have, however, placed on record photographs which show use of suction pump as also, JCB machines. The affidavit filed by Nayab Tahsildar is silent on this aspect.

¶11

{2}

¶12

917 sr. no..odt

¶13

3] Thus, after 2011, respondent No.6 may not have excavated sand from the river bed. It is not very clear, as to whether respondent No.6 has been given any sand ghat subsequently. Counsel for petitioners states that after 2011, she has not received instructions about the allotment of any other site to respondent No.6.

¶14

4] In this situation, as we find that no purpose will be served by keeping the PIL pending, we dispose of the same. But, as the allegations regarding use of JCB and suction pump by respondent No.6, on the basis of photographs have not been controverted by respondents, we grant petitioners leave to move appropriate representation to respondent Nos. 1 to 4 pointing out those photographs, thereby making out need for enquiry. If such representation is made within two weeks from today, respondent No.3 shall enquire into it in accordance with law, within next three months. Respondents shall also find out whether after 2011 respondent No.6 has been allotted any sand ghat and whether then, he has used any appliances contrary to the terms and conditions of contract.

¶15

5] With these directions, PIL is disposed of. No costs.

¶16

[A.M. BADAR] [B.P. DHARMADHIKARI] JUDGE JUDGE.

¶17

JUDGE.

¶18

grt/-

Balasaheb Raghunath Jagtap and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balasaheb Raghunath Jagtap and Ors. v. the 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pandurang Himmat Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Majahar Jamil Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shri. Vijay Prabhakar Bhosale Vs Union of India, through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Nachiket Yuvak Sangh Vs Administration of Daman and Diu and Ors.

Mr. Hemant Baburao Patil Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Nandkumar Rajaram Mandale Vs Mr. R. G. Hodage and Ors.

Kuldeep Singh Gurudayal Singh Matharoo Vs the Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Vikas Sadashiv Lawande and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Bharatsing Gulabsingh Lakhad and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ilahai Ranglal Futankar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Nath Forge Private Limited Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sonkamble Narayan Dhondiba and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Pratap Gopaldas Talreja and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pralhad Bapurao Gade and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.