Dismissed

Conscious Citizen Forum v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Jan 2016CRPIL/42/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought cancellation of mining agreements and appointment of an SIT under Article 226. The High Court held the petition non-maintainable due to non-joinder of necessary parties involving other agreement executors, disposing of it but reserving the right to file again.

What did the court decide?

None granted. Petition dismissed on ground of non-joinder of parties.

Conscious Citizen Forum Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2016)

(CRPIL 42 of 2015)

vat

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. 42 OF 2015

¶6

Conscious Citizen Forum ….Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharshtra and Ors. …..Respondents

¶7

…..Respondents

¶8

¶9

Mr.Satish R. Mishra for Petitioner Mr.F.R. Shaikh -APP for State -Respondent No.1 Mr.Sumit Kothari for Respondent No.12

¶10

¶11

CORAM : V. M. KANADE REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ

¶12

DATE : JANUARY 04, 2016

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

By this petition, which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is seeking the following reliefs:

¶15

“(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass appropriate Writ, Order, direction directing the Respondent Nos.4,9 and 10 to cancel all the agreements executed by them for the purpose of quarry/ Mining/ Crushing stone under the jurisdiction of District Raigad and Thane on such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.

¶16

(b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass appropriate Writ, Order, direction directing the Respondent No.1 to appoint Special Investigation Team (SIT) to conduct enquiry against the 83 mines including Thane/ Raigad District who

1/3

(CRPIL 42 of 2015)

had been violated the rules and regulation for quarry/ mining /crushing stones under the jurisdiction of Dist. Thane / Raigad.

¶21

(c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass appropriate Writ, Order, direction directing the Respondent No.1 to appoint CISF to take over all the process of mining security including explosive work on such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.

¶22

(d) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass appropriate Writ, Order, direction directing the Respondent No.3 to conduct enquiry against the officers who failed to register FIR against M/s. Girja Stone Crushing Company on such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.

¶23

(e) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass appropriate Writ, Order, direction directing the Respondent No.6 to submit the records at all the labours who had been lost their life during the time of mining work.

¶24

(f) Any other and further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.”

¶25

The Petitioner is seeking, inter alia, an appropriate writ, order and direction for cancelling the agreements executed in respect of 83 mines. However, the Petitioner has added only one person as Party Respondent No.12 and has not added other 83 persons as party

2/3

(CRPIL 42 of 2015)

Respondents who have executed the agreement with the concerned authority.

¶30

The learned counsel for Respondent No.12 submits that the Petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy of challengjng the agreement which has been executed by the Respondents before the appropriate Forum.

¶31

In our view, the petition is not maintainable since the Petitioner has added only one Respondent which is a Party Respondent No.12. Hence, petition is disposed of on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties, reserving the right of the Petitioner to file an appropriate petition or take recourse of the alternate remedy which is available in law.

¶32

[REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.] [ V. M. KANADE, J.]

¶33

Vaishali Tikam

¶34

3/3

Conscious Citizen Forum v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Conscious Citizen Forum v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vineet Dhanda Vs Union of India and Ors.

Rajesh Suresh Chindrarkar and Anr. Vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors.

D B Realty Ltd. and Another Vs State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Another

Janardhan Atmaram Patil Auction Purchaser Vs Icici Bank Ltd. and 10 Ors.

Dr.Bakul Chandulal Mehta Vs Yogesh C. Maniar and Anr.

M/S. Dudojwala Paper Chemicals Ltd. - L24130MH1987PLC043709 Vs SBI Global Factors Ltd.