Dismissed

Nandkumar B. Pawar and Anr. v. Union of India Thr Ministry of Mines and Ors.

Bombay HC28 Mar 2023PIL/62/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL, petitioners alleged the presence of gold and platinum in iron ore mines. The court dismissed the petition, observing that there were no changed circumstances from a similar earlier PIL that was dismissed, as the requisite investigation was still pending. The petition stands disposed of with no costs.

What did the court decide?

Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

Nandkumar B. Pawar and Anr. Vs Union of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

5-PIL-62-2023

¶2

Pdp

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 62 OF 2023

¶5

PRAVIN

¶6

DASHARATH PANDIT

¶7

Nandkumar B. Pawar & Anr. .. Petitioners

¶8

Digitally signed byPRAVIN DASHARATH PANDIT Date: 2023.03.29 10:56:32 +0530

¶9

Versus

¶10

Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents

¶11

Mr. M. A. Choudhari for petitioners.

¶12

Mr. P. P. Kakade, Govt. Pleader a/w Ms. R. A. Salunkhe, AGP for State.

¶13

CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA, ACTING CJ. & SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

¶14

DATE: MARCH 28, 2023

¶15

P.C.:

¶16

1. The petitioners have filed the PIL on the ground that from the Iron Ores mines in Sindhudurg District of Maharashtra and Goa, gold and other precious material such as platinum are detected. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the report also suggests the same. Reliance is placed on the letter dated 13^th January, 2004 issued by the Shivaji University to the then Hon’ble Chief Minister, Government of Maharashtra and also report of the Laboratory.

¶17

3. The petitioners had filed similar PIL bearing PIL No. 56 of 2018. The same was dismissed under the order dated 30^th April, 2019 by making following observations: -

¶18

“3. As Chemist and Geologist the petitioners ought to have researched and found whether the quantity of silver or platinum detected in the ore was of in such proportion where it made commercial sense to extract the precious metals from the ore before permitting the ore to be exported.

¶19

¶20

5-PIL-62-2023

¶21

Merely because a precious element is detected in a sample would not mean that the precious element can be commercially extracted.

¶22

In a Public Interest Petition it is expected that the petitioners carry out full research and then approach the court. Half based petition was taking precious time of the court and leads one nowhere. Instant petition is found to be half based. It is dismissed.”

¶23

4. The present PIL does not lead us any further. Today across the bar, the communication dated 21^st February, 2023 issued by the Directorate of Geology and Mining, Government of Maharashtra, Nagpur to the Deputy Director, Directorate of Geology and Mining, Regional Office, Kolhapur is placed on record. In the said letter directions are given to carry out detailed investigation of the area mentioned in the said letter and submit the report to the office of Directorate of Geology and Mining on top priority. The investigation is still in progress. Depending upon the report, further steps may be undertaken. Today, there are no changed circumstances than the one existing at the time when PIL No. 56 of 2018 was dismissed.

¶24

5. In light of that present PIL stands disposed of. No costs.

¶25

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶26

Nandkumar B. Pawar and Anr. v. Union of India Thr Ministry of Mines and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nandkumar B. Pawar and Anr. v. Union of India Thr Ministry of Mines and Ors.

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

Kiran Bhairu Tanavade Vs the State of Maharashtra Secretary Revenue and Forest and Ors.

Rayat Kranti Sanghatana Karad through Vice President M.Ambekari vs Chief Executive Officer Karad and Ors.

Kiran Bhairu Tanavade Vs the State of Maharashtra Secretary Revenue and Forest and Ors.

Rayat Kranti Sanghatana Karad through Vice President M.Ambekari vs Chief Executive Officer Karad and Ors.

Mr. Chandu Vijay Patil Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sanjay Tanaji Gurav vs the Collector, Mumbai Suburban District and 4 Ors.

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

Sandeep Kumar Indrakumar Tiwari vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Union of India Vs Deepak Kumar

Kiran Bhairu Tanavade Vs the State of Maharashtra Secretary Revenue and Forest and Ors.

M/S. Sun Corporation through Its Partner Shri. Vinod B.Nisar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Yogesh Macchindra More Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Amit S/O Satish Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra Thru the Secretary to the Govt. of Maharashtra in Irrigation Dept. and Ors.

Dhmmajyoti Gajbhiye S/O Ramdas Gajbhiye Vs Smt. Indira Jaysingh Aswar and Anr.