Dismissed

Anandrao Maru Mesram and 8 Others v. State of Mah., through Its Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept. and 2 Others

Bombay HC27 Jun 2016WP/913/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the 1981 allotment of land to a respondent for mining. The Court found that mining was ongoing over 34 years, the petitioner sought RTI information to challenge the allotment, and the process of law was being abused. Despite the petitioner's claim of being a poor person, the petition was dismissed without costs.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed against the petitioners without any costs.

Anandrao Maru Mesram and 8 Others Vs State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

wp913.15

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.913 OF 2015 Anandrao Maru Mesram and ors

¶5

..vs..

¶6

State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 and ors

¶7

....................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders

¶8

Shri P.V. Thakre, counsel for the petitioners. Shri S.V. Manohar, counsel for R-3. AGP for R-1 & 2.

¶9

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & KUM. I.K. JAIN, JJ. DATED : JUNE 27, 2016.

¶10

Heard.

¶11

The allotment of land, made way back in the year 1981 to respondent No.3 for mining purposes, is sought to be questioned by the petitioners who claim to be the lessees of that land. They do not dispute that the land has been acquired and they have received compensation.

¶12

Respondent Nos.1 and 2-The State of Maharashtra and the Collector, Chandrapur have pointed out that the mining activities are going on on the said land. Learned counsel Shri S.V. Manohar for respondent No.3 also supports the case of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and adds that the possession was handed over voluntarily. According to him, inclusion of area in which lands are located in

.....2/-

wp913.15

scheduled part, enables the Governor to issue notification exempting it from operation of certain provisions/laws.

¶17

The period of about 34 years has expired and the petition has been filed in the year 2015. Only grievance is, the petitioners could not collect necessary information under the Right to Information Act. The steps taken by the petitioners, after 1981 and within reasonable time, are not placed on record. Mining is going on since decades.

¶18

We find that the process of law is being abused. However, considering the fact that the petitioners appear to be the poor persons, we dismiss their writ petition without any costs.

¶19

JUDGE JUDGE

¶20

!! BRW !!

¶21

...../-

Anandrao Maru Mesram and 8 Others v. State of Mah., through Its Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anandrao Maru Mesram and 8 Others v. State of Mah., through Its Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept. and 2 Others

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

Vikas Nandlal Rai Vs the State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. P.S. Yavatmal and 3 Others

Sau. Sarita Rameshwarpant Yawale (Erstwhile Ku. Sarita Ramdaspant Wath) Vs Education Officer (Sec.), Zilla Parishad, Amravati and Another

Mrs. Sanyogita Amrut Mehsram Vs Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University, Nagpur, through Its Registrar and Others

Noble Explochem Ltd., Nagpur through Its Chairman and Executive Director Vs the Central Board of Trustees, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, New Delhi through Secty. and

Panchsheel Education Society, Bramhapuri through Secretary, Ashok Pandharinathji Ramteke Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, School Education and Sports Dept. Mumbai and 2 Others

Keshav Raj Kranthi, the Director, Central Institute of Cotton Reserch and Another Vs Nitin Nandkishore Zade