Disposed

Ramesh Dhondiram Devghare and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Jan 2018PIL/68/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL sought a permanent ban on ground water extraction by Respondent No.4. The Court, noting that Respondent No.4 agreed to the existing interim restrictions, disposed of the petition by reiterating those terms.

What did the court decide?

The rule is disposed of by reiterating that Respondent No.4 shall not draw water except for bona fide agricultural and domestic consumption unless permission is granted by the Competent Authority.

Ramesh Dhondiram Devghare and Ors. Vs the State of… — Environment and Pollution | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

pil-68.04.odt

¶2

pmw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.68 OF 2004

¶4

Shri. Ramesh Dhondiram Devghare and Ors. … Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents

¶5

None for the Petitioners. Mr. V.P. Malvankar, AGP 'A' Panel for the Respondent No.1.

¶6

CORAM : A.S. OKA & P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : 18^th JANUARY, 2018

¶7

P.C.

¶8

1 Called out for final hearing. None appears for the petitioners and the fourth respondent. The learned AGP represents the first respondent.

¶9

2 Perused the prayers in this PIL. Prayer clause (a) is the only substantive prayer which reads thus :-

¶10

“A] That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a writ mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, directing the Respondent Monitoring Committee as well as Respondent No.1 State, to prohibit extraction of the ground water, from the well in Survey No.32/1, Village

¶11

1 of 2

¶12

pil-68.04.odt

¶13

Khingar, Taluka – Mahabaleshwar, District – Satara by the Respondent No.4 completely and/ or on such terms and conditions, as the Honourable Court may deem fit.”

¶14

3 On 15^th April, 2004 this Petition was admitted for final hearing. Interim relief was granted in clause 4 of the said order dated 15^th April, 2004 which reads thus :-

¶15

“4. The learned counsel for respondent No.4 stated at the Bar that respondent No.4 shall not draw water “except” for the bona fide agricultural and domestic consumption of respondent No.4, unless such permission is granted by the Competent Authority. Since an application has already been made by respondent No.4, let the said application be decided as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from today.”

¶16

4 Considering prayer clause (a), the Petition will have to be disposed of in terms of the directions contained in paragraph 4 of the order dated 15^th April, 2004 as a statement has been made by the fourth respondent that he shall not draw water except for bonafide agriculture and domestic consumption of himself, unless such permission is specifically granted by the Competent Authority.

¶17

5 Order accordingly. Rule is disposed of on above terms.

¶18

(P.N. DESHMUKH, J) (A.S. OKA, J)

¶19

2 of 2

Ramesh Dhondiram Devghare and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Dhondiram Devghare and Ors. v. the State 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Baban Jairam Randive, Chandrapur Vs State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary, Mumbai and Others

Courts on Its Own Motion Vs the Union of India, Thr.Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension, Delhi, Ors.

Shrikant S/O. Gajanrao Aaglave Vs State of Maha., Thr Commissionerate of Animal Husbandary, Maha. State, Aundh, Pune and Others

Bandu S/O Kisan Nannaware and Another Vs the State of Maha. Thr. Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mumbai and Others

Ramdas Dayaram Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ravindra H. Shinde Vs State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Ors.

Bhikaji S/O Motiram Varokar Vs Municipal Council Malkapur, Thr. Chief Officer and Others

Shri Devendra Punjabrao Godbole Vs State of Maha. through Chief Secretary, Planning Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Others

Malabar Hill Citizens Forum and Anr. Vs the Assistant Municipal Commissioner D Ward and 6 Ors.

Malabar Hill Citizens Forum Society and Anr. Vs the Assistant Municipal Commissioner D Ward and 6 Ors.

Sahinder Pritamsingh Khanuja through Their Constituted Attorney and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Gp and Anr.

Laboratoires Griffon Private Limited Vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation

Santosh Gaurishankar Kanojia. and Anr. Vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corpn.for Greater Bombay and Ors.

Shri. Tukojirao Krushnajirao Pawar through Constituted Attorney Vs Asst. Director of Town Planning and Ors.