Disposed

Diwakar S/O. Nanaji Game and Another v. State of Maharashtra, Dept. of Irrigation Thr. Principal Secretary, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC10 Jan 2019PIL/62/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a PIL regarding water supply assurances given by the respondent. Satisfied with assurances that priority would be given to drinking water supply, the court closed the litigation without costs.

What did the court decide?

PIL disposed of; assurance given by respondent held binding.

What the court decided

Diwakar S/O. Nanaji Game and Another Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2019)

Order

1001pil62.16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 62/2016.

¶6

Diwakar Nanaji Game and another. - VERSUS-

¶7

State of Maharashtra and others.

¶8

Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶9

Shri A.R. Patil, Advocate for Petitioners.

¶10

Shri S.M.Ukey, Addl.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1, 3 to 6. Shri S. Manohar, Senior Advocate with Shri A.A. Naik, Advocate for Respondent No.7.

¶11

Shri V.G. Palshikar, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶12

CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE & VINAY JOSHI, JJ.

¶13

DATE : JANUARY 10, 2019.

¶14

Heard.

¶15

The learned Counsel appearing for V.I.D.C. and State of Maharashtra, make statement that first priority is for supply of drinking water. In case of any scarcity of water, the supply would not be made available to respondent no.7 Company.

¶16

In paragraph no.24 of the reply filed by respondent no.7, it is stated as under :

Order

1001pil62.16

“24. It is submitted that the site

¶21

from where, the answering respondent is permitted to draw water is located at a lower level that then Hinganghat. It is submitted that the direction of the flow of the river thus first provides water to Hinganghat. It is submitted that it is thereafter that the water, if available can be drawn by the answering respondent. It is submitted that Hinganghat is located upstream and as such the utilization of water by the answering respondent who is located downstream would have no effect on the water availability of Hinganghat.”

¶22

In view of the aforesaid assurances by respondent regarding drinking water from the source in question, we do not find any reason to go into the matter further. The grievances of petitioner stand satisfied.

¶23

The assurance given to this Court shall

Order

1001pil62.16

always remain binding on the respondent. All the parties have agreed to the aforesaid arrangement. Public Interest Litigation is, disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶28

JUDGE JUDGE

¶29

Rgd.

Diwakar S/O. Nanaji Game and Another v. State of Maharashtra, Dept. of Irrigation Thr. Principal Secretary, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Diwakar S/O. Nanaji Game and Another v. State of Maharashtra, Dept. of Irrigation Thr. Principal Secretary, Mumbai and Others

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

Grampanchayat Alsand, through Its Sarpanch Vs Panchayat Samiti, Khanapur and Ors.

Shri. R. R. Tripathi Vs Union of India Thru Ministry of Home Affairs and Ors.

Grampanchayat Alsand, through Its Sarpanch Vs Panchayat Samiti, Khanapur and Ors.

Mr. Sanjay Brijkishorlal Nirupam Vs the State of Maharashtra Throu Principal Secretary and Ors.

Mah. Rajya Karmachari Mahasangh (Prop.) Thru Shri. Mukund H. Jadwar vs Chief Secretary, State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shridhar S/O Nanduji Ade Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Department of Home, Mumbai and Others

Datta Shrirang Mane Vs Best Workers Union and 2 Ors.

Prashant S/O Prabhakarrao Pawar and Another Vs Govt. of Maharashtra through Its Collector, Nagpur and Others

Sanjay S/O Surajpalsingh Mungona Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department of Animalo Husbandry and Fisheries, Mumbai and Ors.

Suraj S/O Pandurang Merfulwar Vs Sm. Dnyaneshwari D. Ahire, Superintendent, State Excise, Bhandara and Another

Parsuram S/O Yellaya Godselwar and Another Vs Smt. Dnyaneshwari D. Ahire, Superintendent, State Excise, Bhandara and 1

Bhola S/O Garibdasji Baisware and 2 Others Vs the State of Maharashtra, Department of General Administration Departement, Mumbai and 4 Others

Nagari Hakka Saurakshan Manch through Its Central President Shri Janardan Gulabrao Moon and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Dept. of Education, Mumbai and Others

Shri Kadir S/O Kismetulla Sheikh Vs the Collector, Bhandara and Another