Disposed

Satyabhan Sitaram Salve v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC3 Feb 2014WP/765/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two-writ petitions challenging excavation contracts were dismissed. The Court found the State-level cabinet sub-committee ineffective, directing the Secretary of Revenue and Forest to constitute a reasoned order considering water scarcity, environment, and Gram Sabha records within three months, pending work order issuance.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the Secretary, Department of Revenue and Forest, to consider grievances, Gram Sabha records, and expert reports and pass a reasoned order within three months, prohibiting work order issu

Satyabhan Sitaram Salve Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Environment and Pollution | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

-:(1):-

¶2

765NGRP

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶4

OfficeNotes,Office Court's or Judge's orders.
MemorandaofCoram,
appearance,Court's
orders or directions and
Registrar's orders.

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 765 OF 2014

¶6

WITH WP/766/2014 WITH WP/774/2014 WITH WP/810/2014

¶7

SATYABHAN SITARAM SALVE

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶10

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr.Deshmukh Mahes S. Addl.GP for Respondents: Mr. G. K. Thigale.

¶11

***

¶12

CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI & RAVINDRA V.GHUGE,JJ. DATED: 3rd FEBRUARY, 2014.

¶13

PER COURT:

¶14

1.In these matters, we find that there are

¶15

grievances raised by the petitioners and on the
ground of shortage of water, ecological and
environmental issues, that contracts for

¶16

excavation of sand should not be issued.

¶17

2.Since the petitions have been filed, and

¶18

most of them before any work order has been
issued, we expected the learned A.G.P. to take
comprehensive instructions, as to whether the
authorities would address all the concerns of

¶19

765NGRP

¶20

-:(2):-

¶21

the petitioners rather than leaving the matters

¶22

of the nature noted above, to this Court. We
are sorry to note that the instructions are
falling short of the required standards.

¶23

3.We would have expected if not the Collector

¶24

but atleast the Divisional Commissioner to

¶25

have called for the records in all these cases
and thereafter take a decision in accordance

¶26

with law. He should have sought all

¶27

clarifications and seek all reports, including
of the experts. Since these matters are not

¶28

looked into at the local level, let the

¶29

Secretary, Department of Revenue and Forest,
Mantralaya, Mumbai consider all the grievances
and complaints of Village Panchayats and

¶30

villagers in general and who are opposed to
excavation of sand in the areas for which bids

¶31

are invited. Let the Secretary take into
consideration the reports from the Director of

¶32

Geology and Mining, the Collector and

¶33

Divisional Commissioner of the Division and

¶34

District so also the records pertaining to any
Gram Sabha and thereafter pass a reasoned order

¶35

765NGRP

¶36

-:(3):-

¶37

on merits and in accordance with law. In the

¶38

event any work order is issued the issuance of
such work order will have to abide by the
orders of the Secretary.

¶39

4.We have expressed no opinion on the rival
contentions. In the event no work order is

¶40

issued let the same be not issued until the
Secretary passes the order. It would be open
for all the affected parties to appear at the

¶41

hearing before the Secretary. The above
directions be complied with within a period of
three months from today.

¶42

5.We have passed these orders and directions
because such matters are filed in this Court

¶43

and requesting this court to interfere with a
decision whether to allow excavation of sand

¶44

and in a particular river bed or not. Since
concerns of water shortage and general non
availability of water have been raised and in
addition to the ecological and environmental

¶45

issues, we have passed the above order. It is

¶46

not for this Court to go into the wisdom of
such policies. Once the grievance redressal

¶47

765NGRP

¶48

-:(4):-

¶49

mechanism is set up in terms of clauses 16 and
17 of the Notification but we find that the
same is not working effectively, then, we have
no alternative but to pass such orders and
parties will have to abide by the same subject
of course to their legal rights.

¶50

6.In the light of instructions received by
the learned A.G.P. we have also perused clause
17 of the revised policy dated 12th March,

¶51

2013, copy of which is at AnnexureA in Writ
Petition No.765 of 2014. It is submitted that
this committee is set up by the State Cabinet.

¶52

It has been constituted by Government
Resolution dated 26th May, 2011 and that is the
committee to which all these matters should be
made over and it is not necessary to direct the
Secretary in the department to take up these
complaints. We find that the Government has
set up a redressal mechanism in terms of clause
17. It is a cabinet sub committee comprising
of 8 cabinet ministers and incharge of the

¶53

DepartmentsofRevenue,PublicWorks,

¶54

Agricultural and Marketing, Rural Development,

¶55

765NGRP

¶56

-:(5):-

¶57

Water Supply and Sanitation, Irrigation,

¶58

Employment Guarantee and Tourism and Cultural
Affairs. It is stated that this committee is

¶59

functional. However, it has not been pointed
out that as to how in the teeth of said
committee and which is functional at the state

¶60

level that the resolutions of the Gram Sabha
and other documents being forwarded to it that
the committee has not stepped in. It will not

¶61

be possible, in our view, for 8 cabinet
ministers to find time and to meet regularly.
In these circumstances, if the alternate

¶62

mechanism is found to be inefficacious and

¶63

would not meet till the tender process is
completed, then, we cannot countenance the
submissions of learned A.G.P. and direct this
sub committee to take up the matters.

¶64

7.We find that the revised policy dated 12th

¶65

March, 2013 makes reference to several orders

¶66

passed by this Court from time to time. The
Government has decided to frame a fresh policy

¶67

in which there is specific reference to the
Gram Sabha and the resolutions of the Gram

¶68

765NGRP

¶69

-:(6):-

¶70

Sabha. There is a specific reference to prior

¶71

survey. There is then specific reference to

¶72

the clearance from the Department of
Environment and Forest. In these circumstances
when the ministers or the authorities incharge
of the ministry of Environment are not finding

¶73

any place in this committee, then, all the more
it is not comprehensive. Its constitution
makes it unworkable and cumbersome for

¶74

redressal of any complaints. It is not
necessary to set up a sub committee of

¶75

ministers alone. We have no doubt that the

¶76

Secretary would take assistance of all the
departments, including the department of

¶77

Environment, so also Mining and take into

¶78

consideration their reports before finally

¶79

deciding to uphold the award of the contract or
otherwise. These are matters which ought to be

¶80

looked into by the Secretary. In the petition

¶81

viz. Writ Petition No.765 of 2014 it has been

¶82

stated that a representation was made on 21st

¶83

January, 2014 to the Collector to cancel the
auction held on 18th December, 2013. The

¶84

765NGRP

¶85

-:(7):-

¶86

grievance made is that the Gram Sabha also was

¶87

not properly constituted and summoned. In

¶88

these circumstances when the resolution of the
purported Gram Sabha is also questioned then we

¶89

expect the Collector to have taken a firm
decision. When the matters are left unattended

¶90

then we have no alternative but to direct the
Secretary in the department concern to decide
the complaints. In these circumstances, we
were constrained to pass this order today.

¶91

8.All complaints and which are subject matter

¶92

of the present petitions, be referred to the

¶93

Secretary. He shall deal with in terms of the
applicable laws. All writ petitions are
disposed of. No costs.

¶94

[RAVINDRA V. GHUGE,J.][S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J.]
Dt.03/02/2014
ans/765NGRP

Satyabhan Sitaram Salve v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyabhan Sitaram Salve v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhujal Bhagya Laxmi Mastya Vaisaya Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. Jalkot Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Maharashtra Magaswargiya Maschya Vyavsaik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Tambad Sawangi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mahadeo Koli Anjana Maschya Vyavsaik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Pishor (Digar) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shankar Baburao Dhotre and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vishnudas Nagnath Kolpuke and Anr. Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

Pandurang Vithalrao Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others