Dismissed

Rahul @ Surendra Bhagwan Shitole v. the Ceo, Vita Nagarparishad Vita, through Government of Maharashtra

Bombay HC16 Jun 2022PIL/33/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL petition contesting a poultry farm's operation on public health grounds was dismissed. An inspection report found the farm clean and free of infestation, though officers lacked expertise to comment on health hazards. The court found no evidence of ailments or statutory violations caused by the farm.

What did the court decide?

No order restraining the respondent from operating the poultry farm was passed; the petition was dismissed.

Rahul @ Surendra Bhagwan Shitole Vs the Ceo, Vita… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

19-PIL.33.2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 33 OF 2022

¶4

Rahul @ Surendra Bhagwan } Shitole } Petitioner Versus The CEO, Vita Nagarparishad } and Ors. } Respondents

¶5

Mr. Laxman K. Kalel for the petitioner.

¶6

Mr. P. P. Kakade, Government Pleader with Mr. M. M. Pable, AGP for State.

¶7

Mr. Siddharth Shitole for respondent no. 3.

¶8

CORAM: DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ & M. S. KARNIK, J.

¶9

DATE: JUNE 16, 2022

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

1. In compliance with the order dated 17^th March 2021 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court, the poultry farm of the respondent no. 3 was inspected by 4 (four) officers of the Government of Maharashtra. The officers, upon thorough inspection of the poultry farm of the respondent no. 3, have submitted a report dated 1^st April 2021, which is placed on record by Mr. Kakade, learned Government Pleader and marked ‘X’ for identification.

¶12

2. We have perused the report. The officers have observed that the poultry farm was clean and close observation of the birds (hens) revealed no infestation of fleas, flies and mosquitoes. Any kind of foul odour was not observed.

Page 1 of 2

J.V.Salunke,PS

19-PIL.33.2022

The birds were found to be in healthy condition and eggs were also preserved properly.

¶17

3. Copy of the report has been shared with Mr. Kalel, learned advocate for the petitioner. He has drawn our attention to the last paragraph of the report, where it has been observed that since the inspecting officers are not experts on the subject of human health, they have refrained from commenting on any issue related to public health hazard.

¶18

4. Having considered the submission of Mr. Kelel, we had an occasion to peruse the pleadings. Although there is a general statement that the poultry farm poses a threat to public health and hygiene, there is no reference to any single instance of any member of civil society having suffered any ailment, not to speak of casualty, because of operation of the poultry farm by the respondent no. 3. Also, there is no reference to violation of any statutory provision.

¶19

5. Regard being had to such state of affairs, we are of the clear opinion that no order to restrain the respondent no. 3 from operating the poultry farm can be passed on this PIL petition.

¶20

6. Being devoid of merit, the PIL petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

SALUNKE J V

¶22

Digitally signed by SALUNKE J V Date: 2022.06.16 20:22:28 +0530

¶23

(M. S. KARNIK, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶24

Page 2 of 2

¶25

J.V.Salunke,PS

Rahul @ Surendra Bhagwan Shitole v. the Ceo, Vita Nagarparishad Vita, through Government of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul @ Surendra Bhagwan Shitole v. the Ceo, Vita Nagarparishad Vita, through Government of Maharashtra

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

Ganesh Ramesh Nimbalkar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Satish Jagdish Maral Vs the State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Bapu Shankar Dikhe and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Audambar Shiv Shrushti Samiti Thr. Member, Sudhakar Yashvantrao Lomate, Yavatmal Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Mumbai and Others

Bhagvanji Rayani vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Nitin Devendra Turaskar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secy., Dept. of Rural Devpt. and Water Conservation, Mumbai and Ors.

Bhausaheb Sarjerao Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Varun Dev Jha and Ors. vs Securities and Exchange Board of India and Ors.

Shri. N. P. Ranjan Vs Union of India Thru the Secretary, Dept. of Revenue , Ministry of Finance and Ors.

Amitabh Sharma Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sanjay H. Pandit Vs the Union of India, through Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Dept of Revenue and Ors.

Dr. Ashok Narayanrao Somwanshi Vs State of Maharashtra, Ministry of Food Thr. Secretary and Anr.

Dr. Ashok Narayanrao Somwanshi Vs State of Maharashtra, Ministry of Food Thr. Secretary and Anr.

Rahul @ Surendra Bhagwan Shitole Vs the Ceo, Vita Nagarparishad Vita, through Government of Maharashtra