Partly allowed

Mr. Devanand Mahadev Tiple , Proprietor of Dev Enterprises v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Its Secretary, Ministry of Revenue and Forest Dept. Mumbai

Bombay HC13 Oct 2021WP/4051/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner sought reasonable time to remove sand stack amidst continuous rains. Court found a need for a fresh hearing with the second respondent before taking coercive steps.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to submit fresh representation by October 20, 2021, without coercive steps.

What the court decided

Mr. Devanand Mahadev Tiple , Proprietor of Dev Enterprises Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Its Secretary, Ministry of Revenue and Forest Dept. Mumbai — Bombay HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

Judgment

W.P.No.4051.2021.odt

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 4051 OF 2021

¶6

Mr. Devanand Mahadev Tiple, Proprietor of Dev’s Enterprises, Aged about 42 years, Occu. - Business, R/o Ghughus, Tahsil & District - Chandrapur (Maharashtra State)

¶7

…. PETITIONER

¶8

// VERSUS //

¶9

1. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Ministry of Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, (Maharashtra State)

¶10

1. Additional Collector, Chandrapur, Tahsil and District Chandrapur, (Maharashtra State)

¶11

1. District Mining Officer, Chandrapur, Tahsil and District Chandrapur, (Maharashtra State)

¶12

1. Sub-Divisional Officer, Chandrapur, Tahsil and District Chandrapur, (Maharashtra State)

¶13

1. Tahsildar, Korpana, Tahsil – Korpana, District Chandrapur (Maharashtra State)

¶14

1. Divisional Officer, Korpana, Tahsil – Korpana, District Chandrapur (Maharashtra State)

…. RESPONDENTS

Judgment 2

W.P.No.4051.2021.odt

Ms. Ayushi Dangre, Advocate h/f. Shri Akhtar Ansari, Advocate for petitioner.

¶19

Shri D. P. Thakare, Addl.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 6.

¶20

CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.

¶21

DATED : 13.10.2021

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Sunil B. Shukre, J.)

¶23

Heard Ms. Ayushi Dangre, Advocate h/f. Shri Akhtar Ansari, Advocate for petitioner and Shri D. P. Thakare, learned Additional Government Pleader who appears by waiving notice for respondents.

¶24

The issue involved in this petition being limited, we are of the view that this petition can be disposed of on such limited grounds.

¶25

Rule . Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶26

Upon hearing the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the representation dated 23.09.2021, made by the petitioner, which appears to be not decided by the respondent No.2, we find that the petitioner needs to be given one opportunity for making his submission and being heard by respondent No.2 regarding his plea for grant of reasonable time for removal of

¶27

Judgment 3 W.P.No.4051.2021.odt

¶28

stock of sand, which is necessitated by the continuous rains and the sand having been stacked on black cotton soil surface.

¶29

Accordingly, we partly allow the petition.

¶30

We grant liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh representation seeking reasonable time in the matter to respondent No.2, on or before 20^th October, 2021 and if such representation is made within the time so given, the same shall be decided by respondent No.2, in accordance with law, within a period of one week from the date of appearance of the petitioner before the respondent No.2.

¶31

The petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent No.2 on 21^st October, 2021.

¶32

Meanwhile, no coreceive steps, including seizure of the stand stock, be taken against the petitioner and if, representation of the petitioner is rejected, no such coreceive steps shall be taken against the petitioner for a further period of one week from the date of rejection of the representation.

¶33

Rule accordingly. No costs.

¶34

( ANIL S. KILOR, J.) ( SUNIL B. SHUKRE J.)

¶35

Kirtak

Mr. Devanand Mahadev Tiple , Proprietor of Dev Enterprises v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Its Secretary, Ministry of Revenue and Forest Dept. Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Mr. Devanand Mahadev Tiple , Proprietor of Dev Enterprises v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Its Secretary, Ministry of Revenue and Forest Dept. Mumbai

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

Bhumiputra Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha, Amravati Thr. President Madhukarrao S. Lokhande and Another Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Department of Education, Mumbai and Others

Swayambhu Transport, a Proprietorship Firm, Thr. Namdeo Tukaram Bhapkar Vs Chandrapur City Municipal Corporation, Thr. Commissioner,Chandrapur

Aniket S/O Devendra Mate Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. through Its Divisional Officer

Vandana D/O Tukaram Chandekar Vs Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli and Others

Smt. Sumedha Wd/O Shridhar Ghatate Vs the State of Maha., through Its Sect. General Administration Dept., Mumbai and Others

Amol S/O Chintaman Nasare Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary Public Works Department, Mumbai and Others