Dismissed

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

Bombay HC30 Apr 2014PIL/97/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL under Article 226 seeking release of irrigation water, the Bombay High Court dismissed the petition due to technical issues and advised the petitioner to approach the Maharashtra Water Resources Regulatory Authority.

What did the court decide?

PIL dismissed. Directing petitioner to approach Maharashtra Water Resources Regulatory Authority if dissatisfied.

Shri. Gorakh Anand Ghadge Vs the State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2014)

kambli

pil-97-2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.97 OF 2014

¶7

Gorakh Anand Gadage ...Petitioner v/s. State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents

¶8

Mr.Ashish Gaikwad for the petitioner. Mr.A.B.Vagyani, Addl.G.P. for State. Mr.V.D.Patil for respondents Nos. 2, 3 & 4.

¶9

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & M.S.SANKLECHA, J. DATE : 30 APRIL 2014

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the State Government and the Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation and its officers to release the water of the Tembhu Lift Irrigation Scheme from Deshmukhwadi K.T. Weirs to Man river and thereafter to 14 K.T. Weirs situated in Sangola taluka to the extent of 3 T.M.C. As per the representation made by the petitioner dated 5 April 2014( at Exh.E-1 to the petition).

¶12

Affidavit in reply is filed by Mr.A.D.Shinde, Executive Engineer, Tembhu Lift Irrigation Project Division No.1, Sangli on behalf of the respondents indicating why it is not possible to fulfill the petitioner's demands.

1 of 2

kambli 2

pil-97-2014

Having perused the said affidavit, it appears that the matter raises several technical issues and this Court would not sit in appeal over the stand adopted by the respondents regarding their inability to meet the petitioner's demands.

¶17

However, if the petitioner is not satisfied with the reasons given by respondents in their affidavit-in-reply, it will be open to the petitioner to move the Maharashtra Water Resources Regulatory Authority. If the petitioner makes an application to the said authority, the same will be considered by the said authority expeditiously.

¶18

We also record the statement of Mr.V.D.Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.2 stating that the letter dated 16 April 2014 of the Executive Engineer relied upon by the petitioner has been withdrawn on 24 April 2014.

¶19

The copy of the said letter dated 24 April 2014 is taken on record and marked “X” for identifcation.

¶20

Subject to above observations, PIL is dismissed.

¶21

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶22

(M.S.SANKLECHA, J.)

¶23

2 of 2

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Gorakh Anand Ghadge v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Irrigation 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

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

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

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

Prakash R. Lolekar Vs State of Maharashtra

Datta Shrikisan Wakade and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shirin Merchant Vs the Women and Child Welfare Deptt.

Maniklal Peerchand Lunawat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vishnu Garg Vs the Union of India, the Chief Sec. to the M.H.R.D. Goi and Anr.

Surendra B. Sharma Vs Premlata C. Sharma and 19 Ors.

Mahanagar Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs Prachi Prabhakar Vaidya and 4 Others

Sedco Forex International Drilling Inc. Vs the Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Dept of Revenue and Ors.

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

Votal Purshottam Singh Vs M/S.Sonata Housing Company and Anr.

Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation Throug Its Commissioner and Ors. Vs Laxman Gopal Gosavi and Ors.