Disposed

Thane Small Scale Industries Association (Tssia) through Vice President Mr. Sandeep Parikh v. Sub Divisional Officer, Bhiwandi Division and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Dec 2015WP/12022/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged coercive action taken without a hearing. The Court directed the Respondent to grant a personal hearing within four weeks and restrained demolition pending disposal, clarifying action against actual violators remains open.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent to grant hearing within four weeks with no coercive steps taken against Petitioners during this period.

Thane Small Scale Industries Association (Tssia)… — Environment and Pollution | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

WP. 12022-15

¶2

VPH

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION No. 12022 OF 2015

¶5

Thane Small Scale Industries Association (TSSIA) through Vice President ... Petitioner Vs. Sub Divisional Officer, Bhiwandi Division & Ors. ... Respondents

¶6

¶7

Mr. P. K. Dhakephalkar, Sr. Counsel a/w Ramesh Karale & Makrand Panchakshari i/b Ramesh Karale, for the Petitioner.

¶8

Mr. P. P. Kakade, AGP for the Respondent - State.

¶9

¶10

CORAM : V. M. KANADE, ACTING C. J. & REVATI MOHITE-DERE, J. DATE : DECEMBER 8, 2015

¶11

PC.

¶12

. The grievance of the Petitioners is that without giving

¶13

hearing to them and immediately after issuance of show-cause notice, action has been taken by the Respondent. It is submitted that the Petitioners are purchasers of factory shades which were constructed by the Developer sometime in 2004-05. It is submitted that first showcause notice was issued on 17.11.2015 and the second show-cause

¶14

1 / 3

¶15

WP. 12022-15

¶16

notice was issued on 27.11.2015. It is submitted that no hearing has been given to the Petitioners after the show-cause notices have been issued.

¶17

The Respondent, however, issued notice, stating therein that the Galas and factory shades have been constructed by cutting mangroves and without obtaining NA permission. It is submitted that since no reply was given to the show-cause notice, it would be presumed that the Petitioners have nothing to say on the allegations which are mentioned in the notice.

¶18

In our view, the Respondent-Authorities should give adequate opportunity to the Petitioners to submit their reply and after giving them hearing, they may take action in accordance with law. Mr. Kakade, learned AGP appearing on behalf of the Respondent-State submitted that the buildings are still being constructed by demolishing mangroves and it is strictly in violation of the Environment Protection Act and the orders passed by this Court.

¶19

Mr. P. K. Dhakephal, the learned senior counsel

¶20

appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners

¶21

have purchased these shades from the Developers and that they are not

¶22

2 / 3

¶23

WP. 12022-15

¶24

making any construction on the said area, nor are they cutting mangroves.

¶25

Taking into consideration the above facts, in our view, the petition can be conveniently disposed of by directing the RespondentAuthorities to give adequate opportunity to the Petitioners to file their say and thereafter give them personal hearing, and thereafter pass a reasoned order, on merits and in accordance with law. Till that time no coercive steps shall be taken against the Petitioners by demolishing factory shades, Galas, etc. All contentions of both parties are kept open. This process shall be completed within four weeks.

¶26

The Respondents are at liberty to take action against the persons who are cutting mangroves, in accordance with law, including filing of criminal cases. It is clarified that after a reasoned order is passed and if it adversely affects interest of the Petitioners, said order may not be implemented for a period of one week thereafter. Writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Petition is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶27

Sd/Sd/[REVATI MOHITE-DERE, J.] [ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶28

Vinayak Halemath

¶29

3 / 3

Thane Small Scale Industries Association (Tssia) through Vice President Mr. Sandeep Parikh v. Sub Divisional Officer, Bhiwandi Division and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thane Small Scale Industries Association (Tssia) through Vice President Mr. Sandeep Parikh v. Sub Divisional Officer, Bhiwandi Division and Ors.

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

Ms. Shilpa Mehta and 5 Others Vs Si-Group India Limited

Chandraprakash Gorakhnath Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Padmashri P. Vyas and 5 Ors. Vs Tushar D. Shah and 2 Ors.

Nana Dhondiba Desai Vs Shivanand Finance Ltd. and Ors.

Rajubhai Ranchodbhai Baria and Anr. Vs Kiran Anandlal Sheth and 3 Ors.

Rajubahi Ranchodbhai Baria and Jagdish Chandrashekhar Mishra Vs Hasumati Ashok Sunderlal and 4 Others