Disposed

Pranav Teerth Mission for Mankind and Ors. v. State Government of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Aug 2018PIL/157/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed a PIL concerning the alignment of a bridge over Kelshi creek. Petitioners alleged increased construction costs due to interim orders, while the State claimed the alignment was altered to protect sand dunes and mangroves, with MCZMA approval. The Court accepted the alleged diversion and disposed of the PIL.

What did the court decide?

Public Interest Litigation no. 157 of 2006 and Civil Application no. 198 of 2015 were disposed of; ad-interim order vacated.

Pranav Teerth Mission for Mankind and Ors. Vs State… — Environment and Pollution | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

24-PIL-157-2006.DOC

¶2

Jsn

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 157 OF 2006 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 198 OF 2015

¶5

The Executive Engineer … Applicant In the matter between Pranav Teerth Mission for Mankind and Ors. … Petitioners Versus State Government of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

¶6

Mr. S.R. Ronge, for the Petitioners

¶7

Mrs. R.A. Salunkhe, AGP for Applicant in CAI and for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in PIL.

¶8

CORAM: A.S. OKA AND RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ. DATE: 3RD AUGUST, 2018

¶9

PC:-

¶10

Jitendra Shankar Nijasure

¶11

We have perused the averments made in Civil Application No. 198 of 2015. In paragraph 7 onwards, it is stated that there is a change of alignment made of the bridge over Kelshi creek. In the application it is pointed out that as a result of ad-interim order of this Court, now the cost of construction of the bridge has substantially increased. It is stated that in view of the ad-interim order that the alignment of the bridge has undergone a change. The alignment has been changed in a such manner that sand dunes and mangroves are protected. It is stated that even MCZMA has granted approval to the proposed alignment.

¶12

Digitally signed by Jitendra Shankar Nijasure Date: 2018.08.14 17:06:55 +0530

¶13

1/3

¶14

24-PIL-157-2006.DOC

¶15

There is an Affidavit in Reply filed by one Shrikrishna L. Godbole, a Director of the Petitioner No.1 on behalf of the Petitioners. In paragraph 10 of the Affidavit Shrikrishna L. Godbole has stated thus:-

¶16

“10. In so far as para no.8 of the Civil Application is concerned, the Applicants have annexed a copy of the alignment plan. I say that the Applicant has averred that alignment of the proposed bridge will be diverted in order to protect the sand dune and mangroves in the said area. I say that appropriate orders may be passed in the background of the said alignment plan and the statements and averments on the part of the Applicant in so far as diversion of alignment of the proposed bridge is concerned”.

¶17

As the stand of the State Government is that alignment of the bridge has been changed with a view to protect sand dunes and mangroves in the area, it is not necessary now to keep Public Interest Litigation pending.

¶18

Accordingly by accepting statements made in the Civil Application as well as statements made in the paragraph 10 of the Affidavit of Shrikrishna L. Godbole, we dispose of the Public Interest Litigation. The ad-interim order which was operating till today stands vacated. We make it clear that in case the Respondents start construction which will adversely affect sand dunes and mangroves, the Petitioner can always file a fresh

¶19

2/3

¶20

24-PIL-157-2006.DOC

¶21

Petition in accordance with law.

¶22

The Civil Application does not survive and the same is disposed of.

¶23

( RIYAZ I. CHAGLA J. ) ( A.S. OKA, J )

¶24

3/3

Pranav Teerth Mission for Mankind and Ors. v. State Government of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pranav Teerth Mission for Mankind and Ors. v. State Government of Maharashtra 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

Madhukar S/O Vitthalrao Nistane Vs State of Mah. Thr. Its Secretary, Dept. of Forest and Others

Raosaheb Shankarrao Pote( Retd. Deputy Superintendent of Police ) and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Sahebrao Dharma Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Arun Mahadev Khade Vs Union of India, through Ministry of Environment and Forest and Ors.

Anil Vedvyas Galgali Vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Others

The Village Panchayat Talni Lodhewadi through Its Sarpanch Parubai Ankush Olekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mr. Hardas Hazarimal Tharwani Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Manoj B. Waghmare Vs the Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation, Ulhasnagar and Ors.

Sangam Co. Operative Housing Society Ltd. and 2 Others Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 2 Others

Vikrant Chandrahas Tawde Vs the Municipal Corporation of City of Thane and Ors.

Janubai W/O Devchandra Budha and 2 Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Rev. Fr. Vijay Drego and Rev. Fr. Don John Dsuza (Deleted) Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Sewak Trust Vs Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and 8 Ors.

Municipal Corporation of City of Thane through Its Commissioner and Anr. Vs Vinay Laxman Tatke