Disposed

Sampatrao Ashroba Mule and Others v. Union of India and Others

Bombay HC21 Nov 2014WP/3447/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed a writ petition regarding grievance about excess illegal sand excavation. The Court found disputed issues regarding the matter could not be decided in this jurisdiction, whereupon petitioners sought and were granted leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to raise grievances before appropriate authorities.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to raise grievance before appropriate authority/forum.

Sampatrao Ashroba Mule and Others Vs Union of India… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

(1) W.P. No. 3447 OF 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

Writ Petition No. 3447 of 2014

¶4

Sampatrao s/o. Ashroba Mule, Age : 55 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Babultara, Taluka : Partur, District : Jalna, & 12 others. .. Petitioners.

¶5

versus

¶6

Union of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest, Paryavaran Bhavan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003, & 15 others. .. Respondents.

¶7

Mr. V.A. Bagal Patil, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶8

Mr. S.B. Deshpande, Assistant Solicitor General, for respondent no.1.

¶9

Mr. G.R. Ingole, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos. 2 to 10, 13, 14 and 16.

¶10

Mr. S.V. Deshmukh, Advocate, for respondent no.15.

¶11

Respondent nos.11 and 12 served (Absent).

¶12

(2) W.P. No. 3447 OF 2014

¶13

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & A.M. BADAR, JJ.

¶14

DATE : 21ST NOVEMBER 2014

¶15

PER COURT :

¶16

Adv. Mr. Bagal Patil for the petitioners, points out that after filing of present petition, excavation of sand has been discontinued. He further states that grievance about excess excavation still survives.

¶17

Adv. Mr. Deshmukh appearing for respondent no.15 - Contractor, denies any excess excavation. He submits, that the respondent no.15 has already filed reply.

¶18

Learned AGP Mr. Ingole appearing for respondent nos.2 to 10, 13, 14 and 16, submits that he has received records of some complaints made by aggrieved persons with concerned Police Stations about illegal sand excavation.

¶19

We have heard parties. We find, that the question of illegal sand excavation raises several disputed issues which cannot be gone into in this jurisdiction.

¶20

In view of this, Adv. Mr. Bagal Patil seeks leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to raise that grievance before appropriate authority / forum.

¶21

(3) W.P. No. 3447 OF 2014

¶22

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of as withdrawn with said liberty.

¶23

( A.M. BADAR ) ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶24

puranik / WP3447.14

Sampatrao Ashroba Mule and Others v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sampatrao Ashroba Mule and Others v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nanded Municipal Council Nanded Thr.Commissioner Vs Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. Pune and Anr.

Deepalli Durgesh Donde Vs Durgesh Suresh Donde

Saba Bin Hasan Hantosh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bhausaheb Bhimrao Palve Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sunita Shankar Dahifale Vs Bhausaheb Bhimrao Palve and Others

Vidhya Pratishthan Deep Nagar, Nanded Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others