Disposed

Masood Ansari v. Stae of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC30 Sept 2016PIL/97/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In PIL No. 86 of 2016 challenging forest land approval for wind mills, the court held that judicial review under Section 53 MPC Act requires exhaustion of remedies under Section 520B. It directed the State Government to dispose of the representation within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to State Government to dispose of matter within two months via representation following Section 520B.

Masood Ansari Vs Stae of Maharashtra and Anr. — Environment and Pollution | Bombay HC (2016)

skc

1-PILL-86-16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (L) NO. 86 OF 2016

¶7

Masood Ansari .. Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents

¶8

Ms Anjali Awasthi for Petitioner. Mr. S. S. Pakale with Ms Trupti Puranik for Corporation. Mr. M. A. Sayyed – AGP for Respondents – State.

¶9

CORAM: DR. MANJULA CHELLUR, C. J. AND M. S. SONAK, J. DATE : 30 SEPTEMBER 2016

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

1] The petitioner has approached this court seeking the following reliefs as claimed in the writ petition:

¶12

“(a) This Hon'ble Court to be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order and be please to quash and set aside Approval Letter dated 20.06.2013 issued by Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Central) and Order dated 02.05.2014 passed by Chief Conservator of Forest, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶13

(b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, thereby directing the Respondent Government to investigate the illegality committed by Respondent No.1 while submitting the proposal and also the illegality committed in the forest land of Government.

¶14

(c) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Petition, this Hon'ble Court be please to direct the Respondent No.1 not to erect and operate the wind mills in the forest area and also not to operate wind mills erected near the forest land on the basis of Approval Letter dated 20.06.2013 issued by Additional Principal Chief Conservator

1 of 2

skc

1-PILL-86-16

of Forest (Central) and Order dated 02.05.2014 passed by Chief Conservator of Forest, Mantralaya Mumbai.

¶20

(d) Ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c) above to be granted in favour of the petitioner.

¶21

(e) Any other and further relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper be passed.”

¶22

2] The alleged exercise of power by the respondent authorities seems to be under Section 53 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act having regard to power of the State Government to suspend or rescind any resolution or order of the corporation or any other authority under this Act envisaged under Section 520B, we are of the opinion that before we exercise judicial review in a public interest litigation, the party must exhaust the remedial provisions under the Act as indicated under Section 520B.

¶23

3] Once representation is made having regard to the nature of lis raised in the writ petition, we direct the respondents – State Government to dispose of the matter within two months from the date of receipt of representation along with the copy of this order.

¶24

4] Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶25

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶26

(M. S. SONAK, J.)

¶27

chandka

¶28

2 of 2

Masood Ansari v. Stae of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Masood Ansari v. Stae of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Govinda S/O. Kashiram Gawande Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Chief Secretary Dept. of Revenue and Forest Mantralaya Mumbai and Others

Dr. Swapnil Kumaarr Alias Swapnil Vinaykrao Kokate Vs Union of India Thr. the Ministry of Skill Development and Enterpreeuship (Msde) and Another

Amol S/O Hansraj Khante Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary Department of Transport, Mumbai and Others

Dr. Anjan Kumar Chatterjee S/O Late Major Hari Mohan Chatterjee Vs the State of Maha. through the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur City, Nagpur and Others

Society for Fast Justice and Anr. Vs the State F Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Jugal Bhiku Patel and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mr. Vijay Krishna Kumbhar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Jagdish S/O. Vasant Patil Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Inception Media LLP Vs Star India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Goldmine Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mohd. Hussein Ahmed Miya Merchant and Anr.

Santosh Sahni and Anr. Vs Parikshet Sahni

Rais Kasam Shaikh Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Sarjerao Ramchandra Waghmare and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Bhimraj Suresh Mahale Vs Smt. Vidya Bal and Anr.