Disposed

Kishor Mansukhani and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Feb 2023PIL/164/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a PIL regarding maintenance of paths at Mahabaleshwar. Court directed Respondents to take necessary steps for annual maintenance after accepting the affidavit statement on the matter.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to Respondents to take necessary steps for maintenance of paths, trails and rides at Mahabaleshwar effectively every year.

Kishor Mansukhani and Ors. Vs State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

63.164.22-pil.docx

¶2

Digitally signed by BASAVRAJ BASAVRAJ GURAPPA GURAPPA PATIL PATIL Date: 2023.02.07 18:57:44 +0530

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 164 OF 2022

¶5

Kishor Mansukhani & Ors. ….. Petitioners

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….. Respondents

¶8

Mr. Ajinkya M. Udane for the Petitioners Mr. M. M. Pabale, AGP for the State

¶9

CORAM: S.V.GANGAPURWALA, ACJ & SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

¶10

DATED : FEBRUARY 6, 2023

¶11

P.C.

¶12

1. Mr. Udane, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the paths, trails and rides at Mahabaleshwar are to be maintained. Because of the weather conditions, same are destroyed. May be because of climatic conditions, the paths, trails and rides have been destroyed and the Respondents are duty bound to maintain that. The Heritage Committee has also suggested necessary task to be done.

¶13

2. We have heard the learned AGP. Affidavit is filed by the Assistant Conservator of Forest (Afforestation) Satara. It states that the Department is taking steps every year. The paths, trails and rides are damaged due to heavy rainfall and landslide. The Forest Department takes steps every year to keep the trails, paths and

¶14

1/2

¶15

Basavraj

¶16

63.164.22-pil.docx

¶17

rides properly maintained by restoring the damaged / destroyed trails, paths and rides. In the affidavit, it is also stated that now the proposal of Rs.60,00,000/- (Rs. Sixty Lacs Only) for repair of rides of 26 places at Mahabaleshwar was submitted for approval to the MTDC. The approval is not yet received. Upon receipt of the approval and the estimated amount of money, the paths, trails and rides will be maintained in proper condition also.

¶18

3. We accept the statement made on affidavit. The Respondents shall take necessary steps for maintenance of the paths, trails and rides, effectively, every year.

¶19

4. With these observations, the PIL stands disposed of.

¶20

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J)

¶21

(ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶22

2/2

¶23

Basavraj

Kishor Mansukhani and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishor Mansukhani and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Sunil Tukaram Jagtap Vs Sanjay Krishnarao Taksande, Regional Director , Mah. State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. and or

Dileep v Saptarshi and 2 Ors. vs Assistant Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai-H West Ward and 3 Ors.

Vaibhavpadmakar Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sidheshwar Maogalppa Kamurti Vs the Bhiwandi Group Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Soc. Ltd. Thr Chairman and Ors.

Kamal Jagdish Singh vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority

Sagar Ramdas Mavkar Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Officer of Government Pleader and Ors.

Vilas Babanrao Tapkir and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra Thr Chief Secretary Dept of Revenue and Forest and Ors.

Pushkaraj Shekherrao Indurkar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through It Cabinet Secretary and Ors.

Vishal Kashinath Mestri and 409 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 10 Ors.

Adhal Pandurang Soma and 60 Ors. Vs the Municipal Commissioner

Mr. Prakash Ganpat Sawant Vs the Minister for Rural Development State of Maharashtra

R. Gopalkrishnan and 2 Ors. Vs Registrar of Trade Unions and 3 Ors.

Dnyandev Ambadas Adhav Vs the Uniono of India and 7 Ors.

Pune District Suraksha Rakshak and General Kamgar Union Thr Secretary Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Deputy Secretary and Anr.