Disposed

Shri. Kailas Nivrutti Khadke v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Dec 2014PIL/49/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Public Interest Litigation regarding unauthorized sand excavation near protected temples and illegal tree cutting. The High Court barred excavation permissions near monuments and directed the Forest Department to plant and maintain 200 saplings, while accepting that criminal proceedings were initiated against the violators.

What did the court decide?

Directed State Government to halt excavation permissions near temples; directed Forest Department to plant and maintain 200 saplings; accepted criminal proceedings were initiated.

Shri. Kailas Nivrutti Khadke Vs the State of… — Environment and Pollution | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

PIL 49-12-3

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.49 OF 2012

¶4

Shri Kailas Nivrutti Khadke. ] …. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and Others. ] … Respondents

¶7

Mr. Rahul S. Kadam for Petitioner. Mr. V. S. Gokhale, A.G.P. For Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Ujwal R. Agandsurve for Respondent No.10 Ms. Chaitrali A. Parab i/b Mr. Vinod Joshi for Respondent No.11.

¶8

CORAM :- A. S. OKA, & A. S. GADKARI, JJ. DATE :- DECEMBER 05, 2014

¶9

P. C. :-

¶10

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for Petitioner. Heard the learned A.G.P for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.10.

¶11

As far as prayers [A] and [B] are concerned, the period for excavation of sand which was allowed by the State Government has admittedly expired. There is an Affidavit filed by the Respondent No.11 stating that Jatau Shankar Temple, Siddheshwar Temple and Ardha Nari Nateshwar Temple situated at Machnur, Taluka Mangalvedha, Solapur, are protected monuments as per the Notification dated 4^th December 1930. In view of the said Notification, the State Government cannot grant any permission to carry out any excavation within a distance of 100 meters from the said protected monuments.

1 of 3

URS

2 PIL 49-12-3

As regards unauthorized cutting of the trees by the Respondent No.10, on the last date, letter dated 1^st November 2014 was tendered by the learned A.G.P which records that 25 trees have been illegally cut. Today an additional Affidavit has been filed by Mr. Vinay Vyankatrao Paralkar, Assistant Conservator of Forests, Solapur Forest Division, District Solapur. He has stated that when he inspected the spot as there was no sign regarding cutting of trees by the Respondent No.10, by a hypothetical method, he has come to the conclusion that 25 trees had been unauthorizedly cut. The Forest Department called upon the Respondent No.10 to deposit a sum of Rs.95,000/- to enable the Forest Department to plant 200 saplings. The learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent No.10 states that the said Respondent has deposited the amount. Affidavit filed today also records that criminal law has been set in motion against wrongdoers and an offence has been registered under Section 26 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and under Section 2 of the Conservation of Forest Act, 1980. The said Affidavit confirms that the Respondent No.10 has deposited a sum of Rs.95,000/-. Now the Forest Department will have to expeditiously plant 200 saplings. The Forest Department has to also ensure that the saplings are properly maintained.

¶16

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we dispose of the PIL and pass the following order :

¶17

i) We direct the State Government to ensure that permission for excavation within radius of 100 meters from Jatau Shankar Temple, Siddheshwar Temple and Ardha Nari Nateshwar Temple situate at Machnur, Taluka Mangalvedha, Solapur is not granted; ii) We direct the Forest Department to ensure that 200 saplings are planted as expeditiously as possible;

2 of 3

URS

3 PIL 49-12-3

iii) The Forest Department shall ensure that the saplings so planted are properly maintained and taken care of;

¶22

iv) We accept the statement made in the Affidavit of Mr. Vinay V. Paralkar tendered today regarding setting in criminal law in motion;

¶23

v) The Forest Officers shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer for completion of investigation and for taking the criminal proceedings to its logical conclusion;

¶24

vi) Compliance Affidavit as regards the plantation of saplings shall be filed on or before 31^st January 2015;

¶25

vii) Though the Petition is being disposed of, the same shall be listed under the caption 'Directions' on 4^th February 2015 for considering the compliance;

¶26

viii) Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs.

¶27

(A. S. GADKARI, J.)

¶28

3 of 3

¶29

URS

Shri. Kailas Nivrutti Khadke v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Kailas Nivrutti Khadke 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Shamrao Dharma Vantamuri and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Shamrao Dharma Vantamuri and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Prakash Chimanlal Sheth Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rajkumar Kisanlal Awasthi Vs the Honourable Speaker and 2 Ors.

Devichand Yadavrao Bobade and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Basavraj Manmathappa Nagthane Vs the State of Maharshtra and Others

Sahebrao Gajmal Patil Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Bhimrao Sambhaji Lakhe and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shri. Shamrao Dharma Vantamuri and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Suresh Ganpati Dhonukshe Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Uday Gajanan Warde and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary, Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Shri. Kailas Nivrutti Khadke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kumar Housing Corporation Ltd. and Ors. Vs Registrar of Documents, Pune and Ors.

M/S Konark Enterprises Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.