Dismissed

Netrutva Foundation, Gadchiroli Thr. President Named Miss. Ashwini U. Wooike v. State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC16 Dec 2020PIL/28/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A PIL challenging land allotment for a sub-station was dismissed. The Court held the petitioner lacked locus standi since the Gram Panchayat had not authorized it to represent villagers, and described the project as beneficial.

What did the court decide?

Summarily dismissed; no costs imposed.

What the court decided

Netrutva Foundation, Gadchiroli Thr. President Named Miss… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

1612pil28.20

¶2

1/3

¶3

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

¶4

P.I.L. No. 28 of 2020

¶5

(Netrutva Foundation, through its President vs. State, through its Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Deptt., Mumbai and Others)

¶6

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

¶7

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

¶8

CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE & AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ. DATE : 16.12.2020.

¶9

Heard Mr.Sandeep Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms N.P.Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 7.

¶10

Before any notice can be issued to the respondents, first this Court will have to examine the question of locus standi of the petitioner.

¶11

The petitioner claims itself to be taking up the cause of Antargaon village on behalf of residents of Antargaon village contending that the Gram Panchayat ought not to have passed resolution for allotting the land bearing Survey No.16 to the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company for construction of 33/11 KV Sub-station by Gram Panchayat, Antargaon on the ground that this land is a reserved land subject to

¶12

1612pil28.20

¶13

2/3

¶14

consent of Forest Right Management Committee, Antargaon. Although the petitioner contends that it has taken up cudgels on behalf of villagers of Antargaon in the capacity as an N.G.O., the ground Gram Panchayat has not given any authority to the petitioner to take up such a cause by filing a Public Interest Litigation like the present petition. If there is any grievance to be aired before the Court of law, it would be for the concerned Gram Panchayat to do so. But that has not been done in the present case.

¶15

It is also the contention of the petitioner that consent of Group Gram Panchayat has been obtained by fraud and this is an important question that requires consideration in the present case. If that had been really the case, some villagers would have joined hands together and knocked at the doors of the Court. But again that is not the position here.

¶16

It appears to us that the activity being carried on in the present case by the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and also group Gram Panchayat Antargaon is a beneficial one, which is going on to bring immense benefits of development to the residents of all the Gram Panchayats forming a group Gram Panchayat; but, such a developmental activity, for the reasons best known to the petitioner, is not acceptable to it. So, it appears to us that this is a petition which is thoroughly misconceived as it seeks a regressive

¶17

1612pil28.20

¶18

3/3

¶19

course for the residents of the Gram Panchayats within Antargaon Group Gram Panchayat. Such a petition cannot be entertained by this Court. Moreover, a substantial question has also been raised in this petition and therefore, it would not be appropriate for this Court to reopen the issue once again.

¶20

Although we would not be imposing any costs upon the petitioner, we hope that petition henceforth, if any would be brought before the Court for some construction activity rather than any regressive activity. The petitioner has no locus standi in the matter. The petition, therefore, stands summarily dismissed.

¶21

JUDGE JUDGE

¶22

**_jaiswal_*

Netrutva Foundation, Gadchiroli Thr. President Named Miss. Ashwini U. Wooike v. State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Netrutva Foundation, Gadchiroli Thr. President Named Miss. Ashwini U. Wooike v. State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mumbai and Others

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

Kedar Madhukar Thate Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mehraj Ahmed Ansari Gazi Salahuddin Ahmed Ansari Vs the Union of India and Others

Vijay Manikrao Bhamble Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shailesh Gandhi and 5 Ors. vs Maharashtra State Information Commission

Shailesh Gandhi and 5 Ors. vs Maharashtra State Information Commission

Vijaykant Vikram Munde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Chandrashekhar Raghavan Pillai and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Mumbai and Others

Sanjay Bhaskarrao Kale Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Others

Anant Prabhakar Deshmukh Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Another

Shree Narayanji Agency through Proprietor Karan S/O Bharatbhusan Budhraja Vs State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary Food and Drug Department, Mumbai and Others

Rupendrasingh @ Mickky S/O Balwirsingh Bakshi Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Sadar Distnagpur and Another

Shri. Aditya S/O Ramrao Bhoyar and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Secondary and Higher Department, Mumbai and 3 Others

Ankit S/O Raju Kedare Vs the Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee-Thr. Its Principal Secre.and Deputy Direc

Milind Govindrao Kachare Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary Housing Development Department, Mumbai