Dismissed

Subhash Datta Shinde v. the Secretary, Central Empowered Committee and Others

Bombay HC4 Mar 2014WP/2574/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, dismissed a writ petition seeking directions for a fresh saw-mill licence. The court held the petition was devoid of substance, noting the licence violated Bombay Forest Rules, 1940, and contravened the Apex Court policy in T.N. Godavarman.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition rejected as devoid of substance.

Subhash Datta Shinde Vs the Secretary, Central… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

{1}

¶2

2574.13 wp.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2574 OF 2013

¶4

Subhash s/o. Datta Shinde

¶5

Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Secretary,
Central Empowered Committee
and others.

¶8

Respondent/s

¶9

Mr. D.B. Pawar, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. K.G. Patil,AGP for the Respondents.

¶10

CORAM : R.M. BORDE
& A.M. BADAR, JJ.
 DATE : 4TH MARCH, 2014.

¶11

PER COURT:

¶12

1]Petitioner is praying for issuance of
directions to the respondents for consideration of his
application for issuance of licence to operate a saw-
mill.

¶13

2]Respondent nos. 2 to 6 have presented an
affidavit in reply and have controverted the
contentions raised in the petition. It is pointed out
that the father of the petitioner was issued a
provisional licence, which is not contemplated under
the Rules. It is stated that there is no provision for
issuing such a provisional licence and as such, no
question arises for renewal of such licence, which is

¶14

{2} 2574.13 wp.odt

¶15

not in conformity with the Bombay Forest Rules, 1940.

¶16

3]It is pointed out that the in view of the
judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of "T.N.
Godavarman Vs. Union of India"reported in AIR 1997 SC
1228,the policy regarding the issuance of saw mill
licenses has been regulated by the Central Empowerment
Committee, established by the Central Government. The
issuance of licence in favour of the petitioner would
amount to issuance of a fresh licence contrary to the
Apex Court decision. In this view of the matter,
prayer made by the petitioner in the instant petition
does not deserve consideration.

¶17

4]Writ petition is devoid of any substance and
the same is rejected.

¶18

[A.M. BADAR][R.M. BORDE]
 JUDGEJUDGE.

¶19

grt/-

Subhash Datta Shinde v. the Secretary, Central Empowered Committee and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Datta Shinde v. the Secretary, Central Empowered Committee and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aditya Fuel Station, Musalmanwadi Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Others

Shri. Sant Dnyaneshwar Pani Vapar Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. Kavada Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Grampanchayat, Shelgaon Bk Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ajay Prabhakarrao Bhosrekar Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Water Supply and Sanitary Committee, Bhogalwadi Thr President Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Shriniwas Vitthalrao Chitrak Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others