Dismissed

Chandulal Mohanlal Biyani v. Astik Kumar Panday District Collector Beed

Bombay HC9 Oct 2019CP/649/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court reviewed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with a prior PIL order concerning water scarcity. The bench held that technical decisions regarding thermal power station water are beyond the collector's expertise and that the grievance was meritless.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition dismissed at the threshold as it is a meritless matter beyond the scope of the Contempt of Courts Act.

Chandulal Mohanlal Biyani Vs Astik Kumar Panday District… — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

649.19cp

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.649 OF 2019 IN

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.77 OF 2019

¶6

Chandulal Mohanlal Biyani, Age: 54 years, Occu: Social Work, R/o. : Gurukrupa Nagar, Parli-Vaijnath, Taluka : Parli-Vaijnath, District : Beed

¶7

..PETITIONER

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Mr. Astik Kumar Paday, Age: Major, Occupation: Service, The District Collector, Beed, District Collector Officer, Beed, Taluka & District Beed

¶10

..RESPONDENT

¶11

Mr S. V. Suryawanshi, Advocate for petitioner

¶12

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND

¶13

AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.

¶14

DATE : 9th October, 2019

¶15

ORAL ORDER:

¶16

Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner at length.

¶17

The grievance raised in the present petition is of non-compliance

¶18

of the order of this Court, dated 5^th July, 2017, passed in Public Interest

¶19

Litigation No.77 of 2019. Though this Court had observed that the

¶20

(2)

¶21

649.19cp

¶22

water scarcity in the State is a known fact, but then while considering the prayer, the Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us was a party (Prasanna B. Varale, J.), was pleased to observe that the prayer in the petition was for issuing directions to respondent No.9 to lift the water from Khadka Dam and provide it to the residents of ParliVaijnath. The Division Bench, in para 9 of the said order referred to the exchange of the communications and further observed that the district administration was taking appropriate steps and an appeal was published to the residents of the area to utilise water economically and with precaution.

¶23

It may not be out of place to mention here that the representation was made to the Collector for lifting of water from the water sources available with the Thermal Power Station and provide it to the residents of Parli town. By no stretch of imagination, one can say that the revenue authorities would be expert enough to state that water available in the storage tank of Thermal Power unit is potable one or otherwise, nor these authorities can decide what should be the extent of water storage in the Thermal Power Unit and what part of that water storage can be utilised for providing water to the residents. These all issues are to be decided only by experts, such as, the experts in the Thermal Power Energy Sectors. Considering these very facts and

¶24

649.19cp

¶25

(3)

¶26

considering the fact that the revenue authorities were making attempts and were taking steps and the Collector, being the district head, was competent enough to make necessary arrangement to provide water from natural water resources or from private water resources, the public interest litigation was disposed of.

¶27

The grievance of the petitioner is in respect of the disposal of the petition and in spite of the representations submitted to the Collector, post decision of this Court, no steps are being taken by the Collector so as to lift water from the water storage available with the Thermal Power Energy Unit, cannot be considered in the contempt petition as the same is beyond the scope and compass of the Contempt of Courts Act. This being the clear position, we see no merit in the present contempt petition. The contempt petition, thus, being meritless, deserves to be dismissed at the threshold and same is dismissed accordingly.

¶28

(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.) (PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)

¶29

sjk

Chandulal Mohanlal Biyani v. Astik Kumar Panday District Collector Beed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandulal Mohanlal Biyani v. Astik Kumar Panday District Collector Beed

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

Motiram Narsingh Mule through Gpa Vittal Atmaram Mule Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Siddharth Nagorao Narade Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Another

Dayanand Vaijinathappa Swami Vs Ravindra Sontakke and Another

Sharad Panditrao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Arjun Dhondiba Kayande Vs Eknath Davale and Others

Yadavrao Sambhaji Chivde and Others Vs Arun Dongare and Others