A PIL petition seeking directions regarding sand excavation policy and individual permits was rejected. The Court held the petitioner failed to demonstrate a clear public interest or an individual cause for relief.
None. The petition was rejected without issuance of directions or permits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
2 pil.78.14.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 78 OF 2014
SURENDRASING SANTOSH PATIL VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Bhausaheb S. Deshmukh. GP for Respondents: Mr.S.V.Kurundkar.
CORAM : R. M. BORDE and V. L. ACHLIYA, JJ. DATE : 01st July, 2014.
P.C.:
. The Petitioner is praying for issuance of directions to the
Respondents to form a policy regarding excavation of sand during the
period commencing from October till finalization of the tender process in accordance with the decision contained in Government Resolution dated 12th March, 2013 and further prays for issuance of permits to the citizens for excavation of sand under the Bombay Minor Mineral Extraction Rules, 1955. It is not a matter of dispute that the State Government has framed a comprehensive policy for according permission for excavation of sand on 12th March, 2013 in furtherance of the directions issued by the High Court. So far as the need of citizens for purchase of sand for construction activity is concerned, due care is
2
2 pil.78.14.sxw
taken in view of the Government Policy. Apart from this, there is no
apparent cause for the Petitioner to present this petition since no attempt was made for securing an individual permit under the Rules of 1955 nor it has been disclosed that request for issuance of individual permit has been denied by the Government at any point of time. It is also not clear as to what public interest is involved in presentation of the instant petition.
2 For the reasons recorded above, the petition does not deserve consideration in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. The petition stands rejected.
[ V. L. ACHLIYA, J. ] [ R. M. BORDE, J. ]
ndm
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petition seeking directions to form a sand excavation policy deserves consideration under Article 226.
Whether the petitioner demonstrates a clear public interest or has an individual cause for filing this petition.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SURENDRASING SANTOSH PATIL
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
R. M. BORDE
V. L. ACHLIYA
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
