Allowed

The Regional Officer, Maharashtra Pollution Control Board and Anr. v. Hashmat Parkar and Anr.

Bombay HC8 Feb 2016RPI/1/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment condones the delay in filing a review petition and corrects a clerical typographical error in the orders of a Public Interest Litigation, modifying the named entity responsible for CETP upgradation.

What did the court decide?

Review petition disposed of with condonation of delay; minutes of order dated 1st December, 2011 modified to correct a clerical error.

The Regional Officer, Maharashtra Pollution Control… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

RPW16.16.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 16 OF 2016 IN

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 164 OF 2010

¶4

The Regional Officer, Maharashtra Pollution Control Board & Anr.

¶5

...Petitioners

¶6

Versus Hashmat Parkar & Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 37 OF 2016 IN REVIEW PETITION NO. 16 OF 2016 IN

¶8

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 164 OF 2010

¶9

The Regional Officer, Maharashtra Pollution Control Board & Anr. ...Applicants

¶10

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN :

¶11

The Regional Officer, Maharashtra Pollution Control Board & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus Hashmat Parkar & Ors. ...Respondents

¶12

Ms. Sharmila Deshmukh with Ms. Rupali Dixit for the Review Petitioners/original Respondent No.3/Applicants in CA/37/2016

¶13

Mr. Sandeep V. Marne for the Petitioners in PIL/164/2010

¶14

Mr. Abhijit Deshmukh I/b M/s. Little & Co. for the Respondent No.2

SQ Pathan

1/3

RPW16.16.doc

CORAM : V. M. KANADE &

¶19

REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ. MONDAY, 8TH FEBRUARY, 2016

¶20

P.C. :

¶21

There is a delay in filing review petition. Delay caused in filing review petition is condoned for the reasons stated in the application. Application is accordingly disposed of.

¶22

Application is made for speaking to the minutes of the order dated 1^st December, 2011. It is submitted that in para 5 of the order dated 1^st December, 2011, inadvertently, instead of Lote Parshuram Environment Protection Cooperative Society Ltd., the words Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) have been wrongly typed in para 5. As a result of the said typographical error, now a contempt petition is filed against the MPCB for not upgrading the Common Effluent Treatment Plant (CETP). It is submitted that in fact the work of upgradation of CETP has to be done by Lote Parshuram Environment Protection Cooperative Society Ltd. Therefore, instead of the words MPCB, the words “Lote Parshuram

SQ Pathan

2/3

RPW16.16.doc

Environment Protection Cooperative Society Ltd.” are substituted. The first sentence of para 5 will now read as under :

¶27

“In view of the above submissions made in the affidavit filed on the MPCB, we dispose of this Petition with the directions to the Lote Parshuram Environment Protection Cooperative Society Ltd. to upgrade the CETP and to treat the effluents of plants/units.................”.

¶28

Order dated 1^st December, 2011 is accordingly modified.

¶29

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

¶30

V.M. KANADE, J.

¶31

SQ Pathan

¶32

3/3

The Regional Officer, Maharashtra Pollution Control Board and Anr. v. Hashmat Parkar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Regional Officer, Maharashtra Pollution Control Board and Anr. v. Hashmat Parkar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aashutosh Srivastava Vs Union of India and 4 Ors.

Unity Infraprojects Ltd. Vs L and T Finance Limited

Unity Infraprojects Ltd. Vs L and T Finance Limited

The Regional Officer, Maharashtra Pollution Control Board and Anr. Vs Hashmat Parkar and Anr.

The Regional Officer, Maharashtra Pollution Control Board and Anr. Vs Hashmat Parkar and Anr.

The Regional Officer, Maharashtra Pollution Control Board and Anr. Vs Hashmat Parkar and Anr.