Disposed

Ms. Prerna Singh Bindra D/O Jasbir Singh Bindra v. the State of Maharashtra,Thr. Secretary, Minstry of Revenue and Forest Dept. Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC2 Mar 2022PIL/9/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A PIL filed regarding encroachments in the reserved forest area of Khadsangi Range of Tadoba-Andhari Tiger Reserve Buffer Zone. The Court directed the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) to look into the grievance and take necessary action. All concerned authorities were directed to extend co-operation.

What did the court decide?

Petition placed before Respondent No.2-Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) to look into encroachment grievance and take necessary action. All concerned authorities directed to extend co-

Ms. Prerna Singh Bindra D/O Jasbir Singh Bindra Vs… — Environment and Pollution | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

1 / 2 905-PIL-9-2022

¶2

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

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 9 OF 2022

¶4

Ms. Prerna Singh Bindra -- Petitioner/s

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. -- Respondent/s

¶7

Mr. K.P. Mahalle, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶8

Ms. Ketki Joshi, in-charge Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5.

¶9

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR &

ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.

DATE : 02 MARCH 2022

P. C. :

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶14

The Petitioner has brought this petition in the public interest, making a grievance that there are encroachments in the reserved forest area of the Khadsangi Range of Tadoba-Andhari Tiger Reserve, Buffer Zone.

¶15

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the Respondent – Forest Officers have issued communications to remove the encroachment; however, no further action has been taken. Regarding the prayer for continuous monitoring of encroachments in this area by this Court is concerned, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner does not press for the same and states that he will restrict the prayer in respect of prayer clause (i).

¶16

SUMIT

¶17

2 / 2 905-PIL-9-2022

¶18

The grievance in the petition is regarding the failure of Respondent No.4 – Deputy Director (Buffer) and Respondent No.5 – Range Forest Officer in removing the encroachment. Learned in-charge Government Pleader informs that the seniormost officer in this regard, who can look into the issue and give necessary directions to these Respondents, would be the Respondent No.2 – Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife). Learned in-charge Government Pleader states that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests will consider the petition as representation and take necessary steps per law.

¶19

We direct that the present petition, regarding prayer clause (i), be placed before Respondent No.2 - Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife). Respondent No.2 would look into the grievance of the Petitioner. If it is correct, proceed to take the necessary action as per law after following the due procedure. Considering the importance of the issue,the steps be taken as early as possible, subject to other urgent commitments.

¶20

We direct that if Respondent No.2 proceeds to issue directions to take action, then all other concerned authorities of the State will extend necessary co-operation to the Respondents.

¶21

The Public Interest Litigation is disposed of in the above terms.

¶22

Digitally signed bySUMIT CHETAN AGRAWAL Signing Date:02.03.2022 18:42

¶23

[ ANIL L. PANSARE, J. ] [ NITIN JAMDAR, J. ]

¶24

SUMIT

Ms. Prerna Singh Bindra D/O Jasbir Singh Bindra v. the State of Maharashtra,Thr. Secretary, Minstry of Revenue and Forest Dept. Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms. Prerna Singh Bindra D/O Jasbir Singh Bindra v. the State of Maharashtra,Thr. Secretary, Minstry of Revenue and Forest Dept. 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

Omprakash Shreelal Pal Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary Marashtra State and Ors.

Kaustubh Ramchandra Paranjape and Anr. Vs the Municipal Commissioner and the Chairman of the Delimitation Committee, Nashik Mun.Corp and Anr.

Ujwal Govind Keskar and Ors. Vs the Municipal Commissioner and the Chairman of the Delimitation Committee, Pune Mun. Corp. and Anr.

Madanbhau Patil Yuva Manch, Sangli, through President, Satish Vasantrao Sakhalkar and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Shri Padamkumar S/O Shri Shantilal Jain Vs Union of India Thr. Secretary New Delhi and Others

Shri. Nitin S/O Mohandas Rathi Vs Union of India, Thr. Secretary, Textile Ministry, and Other

Krishna Kumar Agrawal and Others Vs Union of India, Thr. Ministry of Mines, New Delhi and Others

Vijay Babasaheb Sale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S New Star Ent. Prop. Sajid Mirza Salar Mirza Vs the Akola Janta Comm. Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Thr. C.E.O. Akola and Oths

Satish S/O. Natthusing Sable Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Tribal Welfare and Social Justice, Mumbai and Anr.

Haridas S/O Sawaji Halami Vs the State of Maharashtra,Thr. Secretary, Dept. of School Education and Sport, Mumbai

Rajesh Dnyaneshwar Patil and 6 Others Vs State of Maha Thr Sec and 7 Others

Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. Nagpur through Authorised Officer Shri. Raj S. Mahadik Vs State of Maharashtra, through District Magistrte/Additional District Collector, Nagpur and Others

Vidyarthi Margadarshan Bahuuddeshiya Samiti, Thr. President Shri. Someshwar S/O Tulsidas Yelchalwar Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Dept. of Education and Others