Disposed

Rahul Macchindra Bhalerao and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC16 Oct 2018PIL/127/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL, petitioners alleged that a stone crusher was operating on government land without permission. The Court directed the District Collector to decide the pending representation filed by a petitioner on merits and to provide an opportunity of hearing, noting the matter was already considered by the authority.

What did the court decide?

Direction to District Collector, Aurangabad to decide the pending representation filed by petitioner No. 2 on merits and provide opportunity of hearing.

Rahul Macchindra Bhalerao and Another Vs the State of… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

127.18pil

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.127 OF 2018

¶5

1.	Rahul s/o Mcchindra Bhalerao, Age: 30 years, Occu: Social workers, R/o. Adgaon (Bk.), Tq. and District Aurangabad
2.	Balkrishna s/o Pandharinath Ingle, Age: 53 years, Occu: Social worker, R/o. R-42/2, Mukundwadi, Tornagadnagar, N-2, CIDCO, Aurangabad, Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad ..PETITIONERS
	VERSUS
1.	The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
2.	The District Mining Officer/ District Collector, Aurangabad, Tq. and District Aurangabad
3.	The Tahsildar, Aurangabad, Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad
4.	Gram Panchayat, Adgaon (Bk.), Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad (Through its Gram Sevak)
5.	Shri Satguru Stone Crusher, At Adgaon (Bk.), Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad (Through its Proprietor) Shri Bhagwan Janardhan Daspute, Age: 36 years, Occu: Agril. & Business, R/o. Land Gat No.146, Adgaon (Bk.), Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad

¶6

127.18pil

¶7

¶8

1. The Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Rural, Aurangabad, Opp. Garware Stadium MIDC, Aurangabad, Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad ..RESPONDENTS

¶9

Mr V. J. Dhage, Advocate for petitioners; Mrs A. V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3

¶10

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND MANISH PITALE, JJ.

¶11

DATE : 16th October, 2018

¶12

ORAL ORDER:

¶13

Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

¶14

The petitioners, who are claiming as social workers are before this Court with a grievance that respondent No.5 is a unit of undertaking the activities of stone crushing, which is being run by one Bhagwan Janardan Daspute, resident of Adgaon (Bk.), Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad. Mr Dhage, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.5 is operating the stone crusher in Gayran land at Adgaon and this area is of Gut No.146. It is further submitted by Mr Dhage that operating stone crusher in Government land, without there being any permission from the Government, is an act which is in breach of the Government Resolution and contrary to the decision of the Honourable the Apex Court.

¶15

(3)

¶16

127.18pil

¶17

Mr Dhage, learned Counsel also invited our attention to certain provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 and Government Resolution dated 12^th July, 2011. He submits that the petitioners approached the District Collector, Aurangabad by submitting representation dated 26^th July, 2018. He further submitted that by taking recourse to the Right to Information Act, the petitioners, sought for information and it was informed to them by communication dated 2^nd August, 2018 through the office of the Tahsildar that neither there is any record available in the office of the Collector granting permission to respondent No.5 nor there is any record granting permission to respondent No.5, but then there was a reference to the fact that respondent No.5 has deposited an amount against royalty by way of a challan dated 17^th July, 2018. Mr Dhage further submits that as no heed is paid by the Collector on the representation dated 26^th July, 2018, the petitioners are before this Court by way of present public interest litigation.

¶18

The sequence of events clearly show that representation is submitted to the office of the Collector at the behest of petitioner No.2, who is an office bearer of a political party. On 2^nd August, 2018 an opinion is sought for and on 27^th August, 2018 the present petition is filed in this court. If the representation was submitted on 26^th July, 2018 and if certain opinion was received by the petitioners subsequent to the representation on 2^nd August, 2018, the petitioners were not prevented to apprise the Collector about this opinion. Be that as it may, we are of the opinion that the representation is

¶19

127.18pil

¶20

(4)

¶21

pending before the competent authority i.e. the Collector, Aurangabad. The competent authority would require some time to apply its mind on the representation and decide the same on its merits. It is also possible that competent authority like the Collector may call for certain opinion or report from his subordinate officers to asses the merits of the representation.

¶22

Considering the above referred facts, we are of the opinion that the grievance of the petitioners can be redressed by directing the District Collector, Aurangabad to decide the representation filed by the petitioner No.2, as early as possible, needless to state on merits of the representation and if needed, by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and it is accordingly directed.

¶23

With these directions, public interest litigation is disposed of.

¶24

(MANISH PITALE, J.)

¶25

(PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)

¶26

sjk

Rahul Macchindra Bhalerao and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Macchindra Bhalerao and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and 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

Sanjay Bhaskar Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vithal Pandurang Barge Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Mr. Irba Mashnaji Konapure vs State of Maharashtra through Govt. Pleader and Ors.

Vithal Pandurang Barge Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Ram Suryabhan Khade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Adiwasi Chetna Parishad Thorough Chairman Shridhar Khandu Salunke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bhaskar Vishnu Mapari and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Smt. Yasmeen Yakub Momin Vs Achuta Aange, through Commissioner Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Swati Laxman Patil Vs the Education Officer Primary Zilla Parishad Jalgaon and Others

Venkatesh Narayan Yasamwar Vs Ajit Kumbhar Sub Divisional Officer Kinwat Dist Nanded

Ashok Vasantrao Bochare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Chandrakant Rabaji Dhawale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vilas Gyanoba Rajole Vs the Regional Officer Midc at Latur and Ors.

Sanjay Dattaram Shelge Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others