Dismissed

Devji Bhaya Jethwa and Ors. v. the Union of India and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Oct 2016WP/1854/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged a public notice inviting applications for government land allotment for shrimp farming in Diu. The court found the petition unsustainable because the Collector had recorded that the proposed revised layout plan contravened the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act, 2005, as it violated the 200-meter distance requirement from the High Tide Line. The court also noted the adminis

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of as it did not survive based on the Collector's order regarding the contravention of regulations.

Devji Bhaya Jethwa and Ors. Vs the Union of India… — Environment and Pollution | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

wp-1854.15

¶2

pmw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1854 OF 2015

¶5

Devji Bhaya Jethwa and Ors. … Petitioners

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The Union of India and Ors. … Respondents

¶8

Mr. Amitkumar D. Sale for the Petitioners. Mr. Shrishailya Sadashiv Deshmukh for the Respondent No.2.

¶9

CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.A. SAYED, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 20^th OCTOBER, 2016

¶11

P.C.

¶12

. Not on board. Taken on board.

¶13

1 The learned counsel appearing for the Administration of Union Territory of Daman & Diu has placed on record the order dated 31^st August, 2016 passed by the Collector.

¶14

2 The challenge in this Petition is to the public notice dated 27^th January, 2015. By the said notice, applications were invited for allotment of the Government land on annual lease for the purposes of shrimp farming.

¶15

1 of 2

¶16

wp-1854.15

¶17

3 The order dated 31^st August, 2016 passed by the Collector which is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification records that revised lay out plan prepared by MPEDA contravenes the provisions of Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act, 2005. Second paragraph of the said order records that revised lay out plan for development of 79 units of shrimp farming was prepared by MPEDA leaving 100 meters distance from the creek. It is recorded that the Chairman of the Coastal Aquaculture Authority, Chennai has clearly stated that no coastal aquaculture shall be carried out within 200 meters of High Tide Lines, even from the creek.

¶18

4 Hence, the challenge to the impugned notice does not survive. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners expressed AN apprehension that the administration may come out with a similar public notice. Apart from what we have quoted above from the order dated 31^st August, 2016, the order of the Collector records that it is not possible for the administration to move forward with the project of shrimp farming development in Diu District. This statement takes care of the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners. Subject to what is observed, the Petition is disposed of.

¶19

2 of 2

Devji Bhaya Jethwa and Ors. v. the Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devji Bhaya Jethwa and Ors. v. the Union of India and Ors.

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

Contract Advertising India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Maneesh Pharmaceuticals Limited and 2 Ors.

Polygenta Technologies Limited Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri.Rajesh Chhaganlal Patwa Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Vikram Mahadeo Pawar and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra Throug Its Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept. and Ors.

Bhavesh Girish Patel and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Abdul Gaffar Abdul Qadir and Ors. Vs Superintendent Public Trust Registration Office Nasik and Anr.