Bench held writ petition not maintainable as Division Bench in W.P. 5299/2016 already examined legality of impugned order via speaking order; petitioners to approach constituted committee.
petition rejected.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5721 OF 2016
(Haribhau Govind Lande and others Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and others)
Mr. Sambhaji S. Tope, Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. A.R. Borulkar, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 5
Mr. S.B. Talekar, Advocate for respondent No. 6
CORAM :S.S. SHINDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 26th August, 2016
PER COURT :
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2.This writ petition takes exception to the order
dated 3rd May, 2016, passed by respondent No. 3 and seeks
injunction restraining respondent No. 6 from excavating
the sand from village Awade-Unchegaon, Taluka Paithan,
District Aurangabad.
3.At the outset, the learned counsel appearing
for respondent No. 6 invites our attention to the order
dated 6th May, 2016, passed by the Division Bench of this
Court (Coram : S.V. Gangapurwala and K.K. Sonawane,
JJ.), passed in Writ Petition No. 5299 of 2016 and
2 wp5721-2016
submits that the order dated 3rd May, 2016, passed by
respondent No. 3 was challenged in the said writ
petition and the Division Bench of this Court has passed
the speaking order therein. In that view of the matter,
the present writ petition is not maintainable.
4.Though the learned counsel for the petitioners
advanced arguments on merits, in our opinion, since the
Division Bench of this Court, in Writ Petition No.
5299/2016, has examined the legality of the order dated
3rd May, 2016 passed by respondent No.3, the legal
challenge to the said order at the instance of different
petitioners cannot be gone into, that too when the order
dated 6th May, 2016 passed by the Division Bench is a
speaking order.
5.In view of the reasons aforestated, we are not
inclined to entertain this writ petition. For the
reasons which are recorded in the order dated 6th May,
2016, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ
Petition No. 5299/2016, if the petitioners are advised,
they can also approach the Committee constituted as per
clause 17 of the Government Resolution dated 12th March,
3
wp5721-2016
2013, seeking redressal of the grievances. With the
above observations, the writ petition stands rejected.
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL][S.S. SHINDE]
JUDGE JUDGE
npj/wp5721-2016
2 issues framed by the court
Whether this writ petition is maintainable given that the impugned order was challenged and examined in a previous Division Bench order.
Whether the petitioners can approach the locus standi committee for redressal instead of filing a new writ petition.
Haribhau Govind Lande and others
The State of Maharashtra and others
S.S. Shinde
Sangitrao S. Patil
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court