Disposed

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

Bombay HC29 Apr 2014PIL/207/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation concerning mining operations. Relying on affidavit statements confirming no active mining but rather lake development and silt dumping, the Court found the petitioner's grievance did not subsist.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of as the grievance did not subsist; the opposite party is not at liberty to do anything contrary to the judgment.

Ravindra Rajaram Sawant and Ors. Vs District… — Mining and Natural Resources | Bombay HC (2014)

ash

pil-207.09

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.207 of 2009

¶6

Ravindra Rajaram Sawant and Others. .. Petitioners Vs District Collector, Sindhudurg and Others. .. Respondents

¶7

Shri A.A. Garge, Advocate appointed as Amicus Curiae. Shri V.P. Malvankar, AGP 'A' Panel for Respondent No.1. Shri N.V. Walawalkar, Senior Advocate i/by Shri Kirankumar J. Phakade for Respondent No.5.

¶8

Shri Jayant J. Bardeskar for Respondent No.6.

¶9

CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.A. SAYED, JJ DATED : 29TH APRIL 2014

¶10

P.C.

¶11

. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the

¶12

Petitioners, who was appointed to espouse the cause of the Petitioners.

¶13

We have heard learned Senior counsel appearing for the 5^th Respondent, learned counsel appearing for the 6^th Respondent and the learned AGP for the State as well as the other officers of the State.

¶14

We have perused the affidavit of Shri Kishor Sadashiv Tavade, Incharge Collector of District Sindhudurg dated 23^rd October 2012. In the said affidavit and in particular Paragraph 8, it is stated that the permission for mining operations has not yet been granted to the 5^th Respondent and at present, there is no mining operation in the lease area. This statement made in the affidavit of the Incharge

ash

pil-207.09

Collector is not disputed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the 5^th Respondent on instructions of the 5^th Respondent.

¶19

Our attention is invited to the affidavit of Shri Dasharath Dhulu Kokare, Deputy Sarpanch of the Group Gram Panchayat KesariPhanaswade, Taluka – Sawantwadi, District-Sindhudurg. We have perused the paragraphs 3 to 5 of the said affidavit. It is stated that the 5^th Respondent carried out the activity of disiltation of the lake and its construction. It is stated that the silt removed from the area is dumped in the adjoining land. It is stated that the 5^th Respondent has not carried out any mining activity/operation on the lease area or on the public lake or on the source of Kesari nal Pani Yojna but has developed and constructed a public lake situated in Survey No.4/0 as per the request of the Gram Panchayat, Kesari for the benefit of the villagers and has handed over the said developed lake to the Village Panchayat. In Paragraph 6 of the said affidavit, it is stated that the disiltation and construction of the Sarwajanik Talao has helped in enhancement of the water supply for the agricultural use during the last two and half years.

¶20

After having perused the Petition filed by the Petitioners and the affidavit of the Incharge Collector of Sindhudurg and the affidavit of the Deputy Sarpanch, we find that as of today, the grievance made by the Petitioner does not subsist. The learned counsel appointed

¶21

ash 3 pil-207.09

¶22

to espouse the cause of the Petitioner relied upon the order dated 27^th June 2005 passed by the Deputy Collector. However, the said order has no relevance inasmuch as on 20^th December 2006, the State Government decided to grant mining lease subject matter of this Petition to the 5^th Respondent. If the Petitioners have any grievance about any other mining activities, the Petitioners will have to adopt appropriate remedy.

¶23

By accepting the statements made in the affidavit on record, we dispose of the Petition.

¶24

We must record our appreciation for the services rendered

¶25

by the learned Amicus Curiae.

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra Rajaram Sawant and Ors. v. District Collector Sindhudurg 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

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

Prakash R. Lolekar Vs State of Maharashtra

Bhausaheb Fakira Dhongade and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Shaikh Rabnoddin Shaikh Gulab Khatik and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shri. Gorakh Anand Ghadge Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Irrigation and Ors.

Shri. Gorakh Anand Ghadge Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Irrigation and Ors.

Shri. Mangesh Dattaram Bhosle Vs the State of Maharashtra, through the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

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

Shri. Bhikaji Rama Kamble Vs Ld. Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division and Ors.

The Collector of Pune and Ors. Vs Shri. Sharad Pandurang Shete

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

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.