Disposed
Sanjay Wasantrao Hingne v. the Collector, Buldhana and 3 Others
Bombay HCPIL/33/2015
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
IN THE HIGH COURT
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
pil33-15.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR .
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No.33 OF 2015
Sanjay Wasantrao Hingne
-Vrs.-
The Collector, Buldhana and Ors.
_______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders.
Mr. P.S. Kshirsagar, counsel for petitioner. Mr. D.P. Thakare, AGP for respondent nos. 1. Mr. M.S. Sharma, counsel for respondent no.2. Mr. R.L. Khapre, counsel for respondent no.4.
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ . DATED : 4 th FEBRUARY, 2016
The present petition was filed by the petitioner contending therein that the respondent no.4 had made certain illegal construction and sought relief for demolition of the same.
The contention of the petitioner was found to be correct by the respondent no.3. As such, when the matter was listed before this court, Mr. Khapre, the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4, had made a categorical statement that the respondent no.4 would change the said construction as per the directions of the respondent no.3 so as to bring it within permissible limits.
The respondent no. 3, Executive Engineer has filed his affidavit on 15.1.2016. It is stated in paragraph 4 as under:
pil33-15.odt
2
“ I humbly submit that in view of the order dated 11.12.2015 the respondent no.4 in consultation with the answering respondent on certain conditions carried out the work as directed by the answering respondent. I humbly submit that, now, the work carried by respondent no. 4 as per direction of the answering respondent is completed in the premises of respondent no.4. The drain constructed by the respondent no.4 is sufficient to pass the natural discharge of the nala in the cross sectional area.”
In that view of the matter, we find that the purpose
of the petition is served. Petition is disposed of as such.
JUDGE JUDGE
Hirekhan
Sanjay Wasantrao Hingne
The Collector, Buldhana and Ors.
B.R. Gavai
P.N. Deshmukh
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court