Disposed

Dhanraj S/O Shrawan Giri and Others v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mumbai and 2

Bombay HC18 Jun 2018PIL/6/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of this PIL regarding the release of L.P.G. connections. It directed the respondent to ensure villagers get LPG from dealers of their choice based on Gramsabha resolutions, rejecting the supplier's jurisdictional restriction.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to issue directions for adhering to Grampanchayat resolutions within two weeks.

Dhanraj S/O Shrawan Giri and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mumbai and 2 — Bombay HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 pil6.18

¶2

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

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.6/2018 Dhanraj S/o Shrawan Giri and others ..Vs..

¶4

State of Maharashtra and others

¶5

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶7

Court's or Judge's orders

¶8

- - - - Shri M.I. Dhatrak, Advocate for petitioners. Shri S.A. Ashirgade, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶9

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND Z.A.HAQ, JJ. DATED : 18.6.2018.

¶10

Heard Shri M.I. Dhatrak, Advocate for petitioners and Shri S.A. Ashirgade, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶11

Shri Dhatrak is seeking time to bring on record contempt of directions issued on 16.4.2018 by this Court. We are not inclined to adjourn the matter. If there is any contempt or violation, petitioners can always bring it to the notice of this Court in appropriate jurisdiction.

¶12

Petitioners seek release of L.P.G. connections from the supplier of their choice i.e. as contained in Gramsabha resolution. Advocate Dhatrak submits that different Grampanchayats have filed separate resolutions in this respect. The resolutions are being ignored and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are favouring supplier of their choice by forcing petitioners and others to take L.P.G. cylinders from him only.

¶13

Learned A.G.P. is relying upon

¶14

2 pil6.18

¶15

reply - affidavit. He submits that choice of individual or then resolution of Gramsabha needs to be acted upon. However, the supplier has to be from the area on which respondent No.3 has got jurisdiction.

¶16

After hearing respective counsel, we find insistence of jurisdiction of Range Forest Officer in the matter unsustainable. Scheme has been evolved with a particular purpose and hence the consumers for whose benefit it has been prepared, must be left free to obtain supply of L.P.G. from the nearest L.P.G. supplier. Such supplier may be geographically located beyond a particular Range Forest Officer.

¶17

In view of readiness and willingness shown in the reply, we direct respondent No.2 to issue necessary directions so that resolutions passed by concerned Grampanchayats are adhered to and residents of these Grampanchayats get L.P.G. supply from L.P.G. dealer of their choice. This order shall be complied with by respondent Nos.1 and 2 within two weeks from today.

¶18

With these directions and keeping all contentions of petitioners open, we dispose of public interest litigation. No costs.

¶19

JUDGE JUDGE

¶20

Tambaskar .

Dhanraj S/O Shrawan Giri and Others v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mumbai and 2

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanraj S/O Shrawan Giri and Others v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mumbai and 2

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vidyasagar Dube Vs the Commissioner Mcgm and 6 Ors.

Belapur Parali Railway Pravasi Seva Sanstha through Its Secretary Ritesh Vijay Kumar Bhandari Vs the Union of India and Others

Parvez Razak Darvesh vs Dilawar Daud Gaonkhadkar and Ors.

Love Ramsingh Chavhan, Yavatmal Vs State of Maharashtra, through Sub Division Officer, Yavatmal and Others.

Capt. Haresh Gaglani (Retd.) Vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and 3 Ors.

Shri Gajanan S/O Chandrabhan Hadole Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Shri. Suryakant @ Suraj S/O Gajananrao Lolage Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary Public Work Dept., Mumbai and Others

Amit Maru Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rameshchandra S/O Chedalal Sharma Vs Union of India Thr. Its Secty. and Ors.

Kamalkumar S/O Shrawan Bhirad Vs State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Revenue Department, Mumbai and 2 Others

Ganesh S/O Shriram Warokar and Another Vs State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mumbai and Others

Dr. Mohd. Umar Farooq S/O Mohd. Ibrahim Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Mumbai and Another

Agricultural Produce Market Comm. Vs Director of Marketing Mah. State and Anr.

Abhishek S/O Vijay Ingle Vs Vinod C. Patil, Vice Chairman/Jt. Commissioner, Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee