Dismissed

Shri. Ishwarprasad G. Khandelwal and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Jul 2019PIL/140/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the petition regarding the demolition of a temple wall as it pertained to an unauthorized encroachment. The court granted relief restraining respondents from cutting any tree in Mira-Bhayandar without obtaining approval from the Tree Authority under the Maharashtra (Urban Area) Protection and Preservation of Tree Act, 1975.

What did the court decide?

Respondents restrained from cutting any tree in Mira-Bhayandar jurisdiction without approval from the Tree Authority constituted under the Maharashtra (Urban Area) Protection and Preservation of Tree

Shri. Ishwarprasad G. Khandelwal and Anr. Vs the… — Environment and Pollution | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

(17) PIL 140-16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

Amk

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 140 OF 2016

¶5

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1 OF 2018

¶6

¶7

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 140 OF 2016

¶8

Shri Ishwarprasad G. Khandelwal & Anr. .. Petitioners Vs.

¶9

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶10

Mr. K. I. Khandelwal, Son of Petitioner No.1 present. Mr. M. S. Lagu for Respondent Nos.2, 3, 6 & 7 and for Applicant in CAI 1/18.

¶11

Ms. Nisha Mehra, AGP for Respondent Nos.1, 4 & 5.

¶12

CORAM : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, C.J. & N. M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 24th JULY, 2019.

¶13

P. C. :

¶14

The son of Petitioner No.1 has been heard.

¶15

Grievance projected in the Public Interest Litigation is to officers of Mira-Bhayandar Municipal Corporation demolishing a compound wall of Ganesh Temple and also cutting trees. By the time the Petition was filed, boundary wall and 4 trees had been felled. The response to the Writ Petition brings out that the temple in question is an encroachment and an unauthorized construction requiring the same to be demolished in view of directions dated 29.09.2009 issued by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8519 of 2006.

¶16

Thus, no relief can be granted in the Petition concerning demolition of the boundary wall of the unauthorized construction.

¶17

1/2

¶18

(17) PIL 140-16

¶19

As regards the grievance of felling of trees suffice it to highlight that under the Maharashtra (Urban Area) Protection and Preservation of Tree Act, 1975 no tree can be felled unless permission is obtained from the Tree Authority constituted under the said Act. Since the area falls within the jurisdiction of the Mira-Bhayandar Municipal Corporation, it would be an urban area and would require the permission to be obtained from the Tree Authority constituted by the Mira-Bhayandar Municipal Corporation.

¶20

Thus, the Public Interest Litigation is disposed of restraining the Respondents from cutting any tree in the jurisdiction of the MiraBhayandar Municipal Corporation without following the approval procedure contemplated by the Maharashtra (Urban Area) Protection and Preservation of Tree Act, 1975 from the Tree Authority constituted under the law.

¶21

In view of disposal of Public Interest Litigation, Civil Application No. 1 of 2018 does not survive and is disposed of.

¶22

[N. M. JAMDAR, J.]

¶23

[CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶24

2/2

Shri. Ishwarprasad G. Khandelwal and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Ishwarprasad G. Khandelwal and Anr. 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. Hirishikesh Arun Nazre Vs Nashik Municipal Corporation through Mun. Commissioner, City Engineer and Ors.

Nashik Nagarik Kruti Samiti Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rajendra Bhausaheb Gondkar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vijaykumar Chhaganrao Sarode Vs the Union of India and Others

Northern India Co-Op Housing Society Limited and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Suresh Gangaram Bapuram Vs the State of Maharahstra and 2 Ors.

Mr. Jagannath Pandurang Kharge Vs Managing Director, Cidco and Anr.

Uday Raman Patel Vs the Administrator of Daman and Diu and Dadara and Nagar Haveli and Ors.

Nashik Municipal Corporation through the Municipal Commissioner and Anr. Vs Nashik Nagarik Kruti Samiti

Smt. Ashwini Ashok Pawar Vs the Head Mistrees, Janata Shikshan Sanstha High School and Ors.

Saraswati Education Society Vs Piramal Finance Limited and 8 Ors.

Varsha Vidya Vilas and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Sandhya Singh Ishwar Dayal Singh Vs Ram Niranjan Podar High School C.B.S.E.

Hindi Vidya Bhavan Society and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.