Dismissed

Vileen Dattatraya Padwal and Others v. the Union of India and Others

Bombay HC13 Apr 2018RA/274/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a review application filed in a writ petition challenging a no-objection certificate and mining license. The court found no case for review as the original petition was dismissed due to lack of non-appearing parties, specified damages, and affidavits indicating mining had ceased.

What did the court decide?

Review application disposed of; no costs.

Vileen Dattatraya Padwal and Others Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

( 1 )

¶2

ra274.17

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 274 OF 2017
IN WP/7768/2016

¶6

VILEEN DATTATRAYA PADWAL AND OTHERS VERSUS

¶7

THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

¶8

Mr.G.B. Kadlag, Advocate for the applicants.
Mrs.Vaishali Patil-Jadhav, AGP for respondent/State.

¶9

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA &
S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.
DATED :13.04.2018

¶10

P.C. :-

¶11

1.The petitioner seeks review of the order passed
by this Court on 06.11.2017 disposing of Writ Petition
No. 7768 of 2016. The petitioner was challenging the
no-objection certificate issued to original respondent
No.5 and the licence granted to respondent No.6 for
mining operations. In the said writ petition also other
prayers were made to pay compensation to the petitioners
and the other villagers of the village Karjule, so as to
conduct inquiry. On 06.11.2017 when the petition had
come up for hearing, none appeared for the writ
petitioners/review applicants. The statement is made in
the affidavit by the Tahsildar, Sangamner that the mining
activity was permitted after recommendation from the
District Mining Committee and the Pollution Control Board

¶12

and it has also given certificate. We had also observed
that in the affidavit of respondent No.6, it is stated
that on 30.11.2016 they have stopped quarry operations
and further they do not require Gat No.63/3 for their
project.

¶13

2.In view of the said statement, we disposed of
the petition. We had considered that the licence and
permission was granted for mining after recommendation
from the District Mining Committee and also after
certificate issued by the Pollution Control Board.

¶14

3.Even otherwise, no quantum of compensation was
specified in the petition. There are also other facts
about the accident and injury caused to the petitioners,
which are not specifically spelt out.

¶15

4.Considering overall aspects, we have disposed of
the writ petition.

¶16

5.In view of above, no case for review is made
out. The review application is disposed of. No costs.

¶17

[S.M.GAVHANE,J.]

¶18

[S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.]

¶19

snk/2018/APR18/ ra274.17

Vileen Dattatraya Padwal and Others v. the Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vileen Dattatraya Padwal and Others v. the Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mirza Subhan Baig Waheb Baig Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Tulshiram Eknathrao Kolhe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mariyam Begum Abdul Jalil Khan and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Savita Laxman Bhole Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pandurang Kisan Wadnere and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Nagnath Govind Biradar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others