Disposed

Centre for Oppressed Peoples Elevation Cope v. High Court on Its Own Motion through Registrar General

Bombay HC17 Oct 2016CAI/21/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court on its own motion addressed PIL 223 of 2014 concerning occupational hazards at thermal power stations. The Court rejected the request to add the Applicants as party respondents but permitted them to intervene. It directed respondents to share the NIOH report with the Applicants.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to applicants to intervene; Civil Application disposed of; Respondents directed to provide copy of NIOH report to applicants.

Centre for Oppressed Peoples Elevation Cope Vs High… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2016)

1/3

PIL 223 of 2014

Vat

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. 223 OF 2014

¶6

High Court on its own motion through Registrar General, High Court, Bombay ...Petitioner Vs. The Union of India and Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

WITH

¶8

CIVIL APPLICATION No. 21 OF 2016 IN

¶9

SUO MOTO PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

¶10

Centre for Oppressed People Elevation Cope …Applicants

¶11

In the matter between

¶12

High Court on its own motion ….Petitioner Vs. The Union of India and Ors. ….Respondents

¶13

¶14

Ms. Anusha Sundaresan for Applicants in CAI/21/2016 Mr. C.M. Lokesh for Respondent No.3 Mr. R.L.Singh i/b. M.V. Kini & Co. for Respondent No.14 Ms. Rupali Dixit i/b. Sharmila Deshmukh for Respondent No.17 Mr. Parag Vyas for Union of India. Mr. Shanzad Panday i/b. L.J. Law for Respondent Nos. 20 to 27 Mr. Shyam Dewani a/w. Nivedita Kundaji for Respondent Nos. 29 & 56. Mr. Karan Bhosale i/b. Neha Bhosale for Respondent No.31 Mr. Rushil Mathur i/b. Mulla & Mulla & CBC for Respondent No.34 Mr. Paresh Patkar i/b. Mulla & Mulla & CBC for Respondent No.35 Mr. Manaswi Agarwal i/b. Verus for Respondent No.36. Mr. Karan Thackeray i/b. India Law Alliance for Respondent No.37 Mr. Vinod Sharma i/b. R.M. Tiwari for Respondent No. 46. ******

¶15

2/3

¶16

PIL 223 of 2014

¶17

CORAM : V. M. KANADE &

¶18

Mrs. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ

¶19

DATE : OCTOBER 17, 2016

¶20

P.C. :

¶21

Pursuant to a direction given by the Apex Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 79 of 2005, various suggestions were given by the Apex Court for reducing the occupational hazards of the employees working in various thermal power stations in the country. In all 9 suggestions were

¶22

made pursuant to the direction given by the Supreme Court. National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH), Ahmedabad, Gujarat submitted a report for the year 2011 making various recommendations. The Apex Court thought it fit that it would be easier for the respective High Courts, in whose jurisdiction the CETPPs are located, to examine all the aspects relating to the employees working in Coal Fired Thermal Power Plants. The Apex Court, therefore, transferred the matters to the respective High Courts. This Court, therefore, gave certain directions to the private Respondents i.e. Respondent Nos. 21 to 55 in paragraph 7 of the said order. The State Government was directed to file their respond on or before 8^th December, 2014.

¶23

We are informed by Shri Thadani, learned AGP for the State that a Committee was constituted and some steps have been taken. Similarly,

¶24

3/3

¶25

PIL 223 of 2014

¶26

an application has been filed by the Applicants viz. Centre for Oppressed People's elevation (COPE), seeking direction to the Petitioner to add them as party Respondents.

¶27

In our view, it is not necessary to give such a direction to the Petitioner. However, we permit the Applicants to intervene in this PIL and to assist this Court. Civil Application is disposed of. The Respondents shall give a copy of the report to the Applicants.

¶28

Mrs. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, J. V.M. KANADE, J.

¶29

Vaishali Tikam

Centre for Oppressed Peoples Elevation Cope v. High Court on Its Own Motion through Registrar General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Centre for Oppressed Peoples Elevation Cope v. High Court on Its Own Motion through Registrar General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tadgaon-Khemwadi-Dudhani-Kotbyachiwadi (Tkdk, Vikas Parisar Vikas Sangarsh Samiti and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue and Forests Dept and Ors.

Mr. Suresh Bhandary Vs Mrs. Sushma Bhandary

Smt. Apeksha Mrugen Shah Vs Mr. Mrugen Harish Shah

Mr. Gulam Mohd. Abdul Aziz Banani Vs Mrs. Shamshad Gulam Mohd Banani

Shri. Bhimrao Anna Kadale Patil Vs Government of Maharashtra and Ors.

Manubai @ Motibai Niklaw Vaity and 26 Ors. Vs Anil R. Agarwal and Anr.