Dismissed

Shri. Vinayak Hari Kulkarni v. Union of India Aaykar Bhavan and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Jun 2018PIL/12/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL challenged illegal construction at an eco-sensitive zone. The court accepted the Respondent's affidavit stating no construction activity was found on two site visits exceeding verification. The petition was dismissed as there was no substantive grievance to entertain.

What did the court decide?

The PIL was not entertained and was disposed of as there was no construction activity found on the impugned land.

Shri. Vinayak Hari Kulkarni Vs Union of India… — Environment and Pollution | Bombay HC (2018)

pil12.18.odt

pmw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.12 OF 2018

¶6

Shri. Vinayak Hari Kulkarni

¶7

… Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Union of India and Ors. … Respondents

¶10

Mr. Ranjit D. Shinde for the Petitioner.

¶11

Ms. Nisha Mehra, AGP for the Respondent Nos.3 to 6.

¶12

CORAM : A.S. OKA & RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.

¶13

DATE : 25^th JUNE 2018

¶14

P.C.

¶15

1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned AGP for the State. The grievance of the petitioner in this PIL is that construction activities have been commenced in the land bearing Gat No.17 situated at village Navli, Taluka Mahabaleshwar, District Satara by unidentified persons. The contention in the petition is that though such illegal activities have been started in ecosensitive zone, no action is being taken.

¶16

2 One Ms. Asmita More, SubDivisional Officer, Wai, District Satara, on behalf of the Collector, District Satara has filed an affidavit. In paragraphs 5 and 6 of the said affidavit, he has stated thus :

¶17

“5. I say that the Circle Officer, Panchgani, Tal. Mahabaleshwar, has conducted a site visit on 16^th March, 2018 and drawn panchanama in the presence of the witnesses living in the vicinity. I say that the Panchananam dated 16^th March, 2018 clearly mentions that there was no construction activity found at Survey

1 of 2

pil12.18.odt

No.17, Village Navali, Tal. Mahabaleshwar, Dist. Satara. I say that the said panchnama also mentions that there was no sign of any construction activity or presence of the construction material at the said site. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit 'A' is a copy of the Panchnama dated 16^th March, 2018 drawn by the Circle Officer, Panchgani and Talathi of Village Navali, Tal. Mahabaleshwar.

¶22

I say that the Tehsildar, Mahabaleshwar and the Range Forest Officer, Mahabaleshwar has jointly conducted a site visit on 7^th May, 2018 and drawn panchnama. I say that the construction activity was not found at Survey No.17, Village Navali, Tal. Mahabaleshwar, Dist. Satara. I say that the panchnama drawn in the joint inspection reveals that there is no sign of removal of the trees of shrubs at the said site and the construction material was not present for any potential development activity. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit 'B' is copy of the panchnama dated 7^th May, 2018 drawn during the joint inspection by the Tehsildar, Mahabaleshwar and Range Forest Officer Mahabaleshwar.”

¶23

3 Paragraph 7 notes that the result of the site visit has been informed to the petitioner by a letter dated 11^th May 2018 by sending the same by R.P.A.D.

¶24

4 In the petition, the grievance is specifically as regards Gat No.17. We accept the statements made in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the affidavit. In view of the statements, as there is no construction activity found on the said land, it is not necessary to entertain this PIL. Accordingly, PIL is disposed of.

¶25

(RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, J)

¶26

2 of 2

Shri. Vinayak Hari Kulkarni v. Union of India Aaykar Bhavan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Vinayak Hari Kulkarni v. Union of India Aaykar Bhavan 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

Smt. Seema Mahesh Hiray Vs Nashik Municipal Corporation through Municipal Commissioner and Ors.

Shri Balaji Charitable Trust, through Founder Member, Rajendra Madhukarrao Chorge and Ors. Vs Satara Municipal Council, through President and Ors.

Shri Balaji Charitable Trust, through Founder Member, Rajendra Madhukarrao Chorge and Ors. Vs Satara Municipal Council, through President and Ors.

Amit Maru Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Jamshid Kersi Dalal Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Zuber Jabir Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Sudhir Pralhad Barge Vs State of Maharashtra through the Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Sharad H. Sheth and Anr. Vs the General Manager Central Railway and Anr.

Mohd. Salim Khan and 8 Ors. Vs Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. and 4 Ors.

Prasant Surve Vs the Municipal Commissioner Mcgm and 6 Ors.

Ansari Iqbal Ahemad Mohd. Haroon Vs the State of Maharashtra through Dept. of Urban Development and Ors.

Shri. Prakash Sukhdev Bhoir and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Nitesh Prataprai Kothari Vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation and 2 Ors.

Vijay Punjab Building No. 18 Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs Bombay Municipal Corporation Greater Bombay and 4 Ors.