Dismissed

Arvind S/O Hiraman Gajbhiye v. State of Maha.,Thr. Sec. Min.of Revenue and Forest Deptt., and Thr.Pri. Sec.Min.of Env.Deptt. and 4

Bombay HC24 Sept 2014PIL/29/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged auction notice and agreement regarding sand gats auction without environmental clearance. Court noted defendants were securing clearance and petitioner participated in prior tenders, thus disposed petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

Public Interest Litigation disposed of with no order as to costs.

Arvind S/O Hiraman Gajbhiye Vs State of Maha.,Thr… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

249pil29.14

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 29 OF 2014

¶5

(Arvind s/o Hiraman Gajbhiye vs. State of Maharashtra, thr. its Secretary, Ministry of Revenue & Forest Department & Ors.)

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶7

Court's or Judge's orders

¶8

Shri R.L. Khapre, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. B.H. Dangre, GP for respondents 1(a), (b), 2 & 3. Shri N.C. Phadnis, Advocate for respondent No. 4.

¶9

CORAM : VASANTI A. NAIK & P.R. BORA, JJ. SEPTEMBER 24, 2014.

¶10

By this petition, which is registered as Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner challenges the auction notice issued by the respondent No. 2 dated 23.11.2013 as also the Environmental clearance certificate dated 17.01.2014. The petitioner has also sought a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the agreement executed by the respondent No. 2 in favour of the respondents No. 4 & 5.

¶11

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the action of the Collector in issuing a tender notice for auctioning the Sand Ghats without obtaining the Environmental clearance certificate is bad in law and it would be necessary to direct the said authorities to issue the tender notice only after the Environmental certificate is secured. It is submitted that without securing the certificate, some Sand ghats in Bhandara district were auctioned and,

¶12

¶13

249pil29.14

¶14

therefore, the petitioner has challenged the execution of agreement by the Respondent No. 2 in favour of the respondents No. 4 & 5.

¶15

It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Government Pleader that in some of the previous decisions rendered by this Court, this Court has asked the Collectors of the various districts, not to issue the tender notice before the Environmental clearance certificate is secured. It is stated on behalf of the respondents that the tenderers are not permitted to excavate the minerals before the State Government secures the Environmental clearance certificate.

¶16

Shri Phadnis, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 states that the petitioner has participated in various tender process for the auction of the Sand ghats and the petitioner was one of the tenderers along with the Respondent No. 4. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 that the contracts are awarded to as many as 54 tenderers of Bhandara district but the petitioner has singled out the respondent No. 4 and has joined the respondent No. 4 as a party respondent in this petition. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 has expressed apprehension about the bonafides of the petitioner in filing the Public Interest Litigation.

¶17

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the Public Interest Litigation is liable to be disposed of as the respondent authorities are taking necessary steps to ensure that the Environmental clearance certificate is secured before the issuance of the tender notice. In view of the aforesaid, it would not be necessary to keep

¶18

¶19

249pil29.14

¶20

this writ petition pending. Moreover, the petitioner has himself participated in the tender processes which were undertaken issued without seeking the Environmental clearance certificate.

¶21

In view of the aforesaid, Public Interest Litigation stands disposed of with no order as to costs.

¶22

CIVIL APPLICATION (CAO) NO. 691 OF 2014

¶23

With the disposal of Public Interest Litigation, the civil application stands disposed of.

¶24

JUDGE

¶25

JUDGE

¶26

*GS.

Arvind S/O Hiraman Gajbhiye v. State of Maha.,Thr. Sec. Min.of Revenue and Forest Deptt., and Thr.Pri. Sec.Min.of Env.Deptt. and 4

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind S/O Hiraman Gajbhiye v. State of Maha.,Thr. Sec. Min.of Revenue and Forest Deptt., and Thr.Pri. Sec.Min.of Env.Deptt. and 4

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

Sevasankalp Jankalyan Pratishthan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Mr. Purushottam Salvi Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development and Ors.

Shri. Pramod Sahebrao Arsul Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mukul Suryakan Gujar Vs the Cheif Election Commissioner and 3 Others

Sanjay Kumar Lalit Vs the Union of India and 2 Others

Meera Sanyal and Anr. Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

Praful Vithal Loke Vs Election Commission of India and Ors.

Shri. Chandrakant Keshav Palav Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Sub Divisional Officer and Anr.

Dr. Mrs. Vandana W/O Nandkishore Khedikar and Another Vs Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University, through Its Registrar, Nagpur and Another

Dr. Umesh Kulkarni, Vs State of Maharshtra, through Its Secretary, Revenue and Forests Dept. Mumbai and Antoher

Arun Jagannath Gedam Vs State Bank of Hyderabad Thr. Its M.D. and Anr.

Mah. Public Service Commission Thr. Its Secty., Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty., and Ors.

Bharat S/O Dattatraya Jog Vs State Bank of India, Bharat Nagar, Nagpur and 2 Others

Salim Maniyar Yasin Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Mumbai and 6 Others