Dismissed

Sindhu-Bhumi Foundation v. Union of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest and Anr.

Bombay HC24 Mar 2014PIL/43/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge bench held that the petitioner, Sindhu-Bhumi Foundation, a registered public trust, does not have standing to file this PIL as its charter aims do not relate to mining conservation. Consequently, the petition to quash the mining moratorium was dismissed without prejudice to the merits.

What did the court decide?

Petition rejected on the ground that it falls outside the registered aims and objects of the petitioner.

Sindhu-Bhumi Foundation Vs Union of India… — Mining and Natural Resources | Bombay HC (2014)

pil43

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION
 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.43 OF 2013

¶5

SindhuBhumi Foundation ...Petitioner
vs.

¶6

Union of India & Anr....Respondents

¶7

Mr.V.S.Kapse i/b Mr.Yogesh Pawaskar for the
Petitioner

¶8

Mr.Rajeev Chavan a/w Mr.G.Hariharan i/b
H.P.Chaturvedi for the respondent No.1
Ms M.P.Thakur, AGP for respondent No.2

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

1This petition which is purporting to be a PIL
takes an exception to the decision of the Union of
India of imposing moratorium on the mining activity
in Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg. The moratorium has been
imposed to prevent the ecological degradation of the
area.

¶11

2The petitioner is a public trust duly
registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act,1950.
We have perused the Deed of Trust and the aims and
objects of the trust. The aims and objects have been
specified in the Deed of Trust. We find that none of
the aims and objects have anything to do with the
subject matter of this PIL. A public trust cannot
be allowed to use its trust funds on an activity
which is completely foreign to its aims and objects.

¶12

2 pil43

¶13

3Therefore, we decline to entertain this
petition filed at the instance of the petitioner.
We, however, make it clear that we have not dealt
with merits of the issues raised in this petition
and all contentions in that behalf are kept open.

¶14

4Subject to what is observed above, petition is
rejected.

¶15

(A.A.SAYED,J.)

Sindhu-Bhumi Foundation v. Union of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sindhu-Bhumi Foundation v. Union of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest and Anr.

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

Maharashtra Rajya B.Ed. Kruti Samiti, Aurangabad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vasantrao Sitaram Kondalkar Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Jitendra Punamchand Maru Vs Union of India through the Ministry of Home Affairs, Central Secretariat and Ors.

Sayyed Abdul Rauf Sayyed Zamir and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mukund Shankarlal Dayma Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shriram Babarao Bhakare Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Balaso Bhauso Patil Vs Under Secretary Water Supply and Sanitary Dept. and Ors.

Laboni Towers Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. Vs the Honb'Le Minister of Railways and Ors.

Smt. Kamal Khangonda Patil Vs Municipal Council of Ichalkaranji, through Chief Executive Officer and Ors.

Mr. Bashir Nijam Desai and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pramod Ramchandra Gaikwad Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Dept and Ors.

Jm Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited Vs Bank of India

Shri. Vishnu Shivaji Vyawahare and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shubhangi Shrikant Birje Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Dept and Ors.