Disposed

Dilip Babaji Ukirde v. the Collector, Raigad and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Nov 2016PIL/82/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disposal of two Public Interest Litiigations challenging Government Resolution and District Collector's letter that sought to restrict manual sand excavation (hatpati) rights and promote suction pumps. The court heard arguments regarding senior citizen committees and RTI disclosures before disposing of the petitions.

What did the court decide?

Disposition of the two Public Interest Litiigations following observations on committee functioning and RTI information supplied during pendency.

Dilip Babaji Ukirde Vs the Collector, Raigad… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2016)

skc

7-PIL-82-14-202-13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 82 OF 2014

¶7

Dilip Babaji Ukirde .. Petitioner versus The Collector, Raigadh & Ors. .. Respondents

¶8

Mr. Zaman Ali i/b. Ms Gayatri Singh for Petitioner. Mr. P. P. Kakade – AGP for State – Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Rajiv Chavan – Senior Advocate with Mr. Parag Vyas and Mr. D. P. Singh for Union of India – Respondent No. 4.

¶9

WITH

¶10

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 202 OF 2013

¶11

Mastsya va Reati Vyavasaik Sevabhavi Sanstha, Dagaon & Anr.

¶12

Sanstha, Dagaon & Anr. .. Petitioners versus The Collector, Raigadh & Ors. .. Respondents

¶13

Mr. Zaman Ali for Petitioners.

¶14

Mr. P. P. Kakade – AGP for State – Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Rajiv Chavan – Senior Advocate and Mr. D. P. Singh for Union of India – Respondent No. 4.

¶15

CORAM: DR. MANJULA CHELLUR, C. J. AND M. S. SONAK, J. DATE : 21 NOVEMBER 2016

¶16

P.C.:

¶17

1] Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents.

1 of 5

7-PIL-82-14-202-13

skc

2] The petitioners mainly refers to the excavation of sand – hatpati (manual excavation). According to the petitioners persons belonging to particular communities in the Districts of Raigad and Ratnagiri are engaged in the above process of hatpati from time immemorial and by action proposed by the State Government by GR dated 12^th March 2013 the said rights vested with the particular community people are taken away, therefore they have come before this court seeking the following reliefs :

¶23

“Reliefs in PIL 82 of 2014

¶24

a) That this Hon'ble High Court be pleased to pass an order in nature of writ of Certiorari or writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, to quash and set aside Clause 11 (c) of the Government Resolution dated 12^th March 2013.

¶25

b) That this Hon'ble High Court be pleased to pass an order in nature of writ of Certiorari, or writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, to quash and set aside letter of the District Collector, being No. KS/Gauk/Sand Gat/Watersurvey / 2013 issued by the District Collector, Alibaug dated 21^st August 2013, in as much as it seeks to elicit the use of suction pumps in areas reserved for Hatpatis.

¶26

c) That this Hon'ble High Court be pleased to pass an order in nature of writ of Mandamus or writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, inter alia directing the Respondents to forthwith evolve a scheme to tackle the menace of suction pumps, by empowering local communities through participative policies.

¶27

d) That pending hearing and final disposal of the Public Interest Litigation this Hon'ble Court be pleased to Stay, Clause 11 (c) of the Government Resolution dated 12^th March 2013.

2 of 5

skc

7-PIL-82-14-202-13

e) That pending hearing and final disposal of the Public Interest Litigation this Hon'ble Court be pleased to Stay, letter of the District Collector, being No. KS/Gauk/Sand Gat/ Watersurvey/2013 issued by the District Collector, Alibaug dated 21^st August 2013, in as much as it seeks to elicit the use of suction pumps in areas reserved for Hatpatis.

¶33

p) That pending hearing and final disposal of the Public Interest Litigation this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass orders or directions directing the Respondents to forthwith evolve a scheme to tackle the menace of suction pumps by empowering local communities through participative policies.

¶34

q) Ad-interim relief in terms of prayer (e), (f), (g), and (h) above be granted.

¶35

r) For such other and further order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

¶36

s) for costs.”

¶37

“Reliefs in PIL 202 of 2013

¶38

a) That this Hon'ble High Court be pleased to pass an order in nature of writ of Mandamus or writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, inter alia directing the Respondents to forthwith issue permits to the Hatpati Societies, for the excavation of sand by manual dredging, i.e. by the process of Hathpati.

¶39

b) That this Hon'ble High Court be pleased to pass an order in nature of writ of Certiorari or writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, to quash and set aside Clause 11 (c) of the Government Resolution dated 12^th March 2013.

¶40

c) That this Hon'ble High Court be pleased to pass an order in nature of writ of Certiorari or writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, to quash and set aside letter of the District Collector, being No. KS/Gauk/Sand Gat / Watersurvey / 2013 issued by the District Collector,

3 of 5

skc

7-PIL-82-14-202-13

Alibaug dated 21^st August 2013, in as much as it seeks to elicit the use of suction pumps in areas reserved for Hatpatis.

¶46

d) That this Hon'ble High Court be pleased to pass an order in nature of writ of Mandamus or writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, inter alia directing the Respondents to forthwith evolve a scheme to tackle the menace of suction pumps.

¶47

e) That pending hearing and final disposal of the Public Interest Litigation this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass orders or directions directing the Respondents to forthwith issue permits to the Hatpati Societies, for the excavation of sand by manual dredging, i.e. by the process of Hathpati.

¶48

f) That pending hearing and final disposal of the Public Interest Litigation this Hon'ble Court be pleased to Stay, Clause 11 (c) of the Government Resolution dated 12^th March 2013.

¶49

g) That pending hearing and final disposal of the Public Interest Litigation this Hon'ble Court be pleased to Stay, letter of the District Collector, being No. KS/Gauk/Sand Gat / Watersurvey / 2013 issued by the District Collector, Alibaug dated 21^st August 2013, in as much as it seeks to elicit the use of suction pumps in areas reserved for Hatpatis.

¶50

h) That pending hearing and final disposal of the Public Interest Litigation this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass orders or directions directing the Respondents to forthwith evolve a scheme to tackle the menace of suction pumps.

¶51

i) Ad-interim relief in terms of prayer (e), (f), (g), and (h) above be granted.

¶52

j) For such other and further order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

k) For costs”.

4 of 5

skc

7-PIL-82-14-202-13

3] Learned senior counsel Mr. Rajiv Chavan appearing for respondent no. 5 and the Government Advocate submit that subsequent to the GR under challenge, there is an amendment brought relating to the excavation of the sand in the State of Maharashtra applicable not only to the District of Raigad and Ratnagiri but to entire State of Maharashtra. In terms of this GR, according to the Government Advocate, Committees are formed at the official level as to how the excavation of sand has to be tendered. It is needless to say that even the grievances, if any, against the action of any of the authorities in whose favour tenders are given will go to the very same Committee.

¶59

4] Though the petitioners submit that they did not have information when they applied under RTI, however, fortunately the same was supplied to them during the pendency of the matters.

¶60

5] According to the State, the Committees are functioning in all respects from the date of their formation and it is for the petitioners to seek any information, if they desire so, from the Committee if the subject matters fall within the competence of RTI.

¶61

6] With these observations, both the PILs are disposed of.

¶62

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶63

(M. S. SONAK, J.)

¶64

chandka

¶65

5 of 5

Dilip Babaji Ukirde v. the Collector, Raigad and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Babaji Ukirde v. the Collector, Raigad 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

Vaibhav Vitthalrao Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mohd. Mansoor Mohd. Atik Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Shri. Ramesh Devaram Dharmavat Vs State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Ketan K. Tirodkar Vs State of Maharashtra

Prashant Vyankatrao Hiray Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shri. Dnyneshwar Vishwanath Jadhav and Anr. Vs Nashik Zillha Parishad and Ors.

Mehboob Khan Vs the Collector of Bombay City and Anr.

Nazir Noor Ali Jariya Vs All India Muslim Personal Law Board and Ors.

Mohd. Mansoor Mohd. Atik Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Shri. Ramesh Devaram Dharmavat Vs State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Ketan K. Tirodkar Vs State of Maharashtra

The President - Mahatma Gandhi Tantamukth Gav Samiti Vs Tahsildar, Tal. Shirol and Ors.

Sports and Physical Education Development Association (Speda), Mumbai Vs the Honble Chief Minister of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sharukh F.Erani Vs the Commissioner State Excise and Anr.