Dismissed

Mahesh Harishchandra Mohite v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Gp and Ors.

Bombay HC26 Feb 2024PIL/22/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PIL by a political activist challenging jetty construction near Janjira Fort on behalf of fishermen. The Court held that affected fishermen or their cooperative society, not a non-member political worker with no prior representation to authorities, could pursue the grievance. Petition dismissed, liberty granted to affected persons.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mahesh Harishchandra Mohite Vs the State of… — Environment and Pollution | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

404-PIL-22-2024

¶2

Pdp

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 22 OF 2024

¶5

Mahesh Harishchandra Mohite .. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶8

Mr. Amith M. A. i/by Sachin R. Pawar for petitioner. Mr. P. P. Kakade, Government Pleader with Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Addl. Govt. Pleader and Mrs. G. R. Raghuwanshi, AGP for respondent nos.1, 3 and 4- State.

¶9

CORAM: DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. & ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.

¶10

DATE: 26^th FEBRUARY, 2024

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the state-respondents.

¶13

2. Our jurisdiction in this matter has been invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution of India purportedly in public interest. The petitioner has described himself to be a Social Activist and a Political Leader in Raigad District. He further states that he was formerly District President of a political party, District Raigad and presently he is holding the office of District Secretary of the said political party. Further

¶14

¶15

404-PIL-22-2024

¶16

submission is that the petitioner was approached by local fishermen and residents of Rajpuri village and on inspection he found certain construction on Jetty near Janjira Fort.

¶17

3. The prayers made in the PIL petition are primarily seeking redressal of certain grievances of the fishermen who are said to be affected by construction of Jetty at Janjira Fort. One of the prayers made is that the respondents 1 and 2 be directed to rehabilitate the fishermen who are likely to be affected by the said construction and further that direction may be issued for absorption of those fishermen in employment generated on account of developing tourism activities in the vicinity of the said Fort. It is also a prayer made in the PIL petition that alternatively respondents 1 and 2 be ordered to be provided and allocated new shops and/or other business opportunities to the fishermen such as operating ferries. The petitioner has also prayed that direction may be issued to stop the construction of Jetty near Janjira Fort with immediate effect.

¶18

4. From the perusal of the averments made in the PIL petition as also the prayer clauses, it is apparent that primarily the grievance raised in the PIL petition relates to the fishermen, who are allegedly affected by the construction in

¶19

¶20

404-PIL-22-2024

¶21

question. If the fishermen or the residents in the vicinity are being aggrieved by the construction of the Jetty in question and they have any grievance in relation there to, the fishermen or their Cooperative Society may approach the Court, however, any political worker, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to file the instant PIL petition.

¶22

5. On being asked as to how the petitioner has instituted these proceedings, our attention has been drawn to a letter dated 12^th February, 2024 written by the Secretary of Shree Mahalaxmi Machhimar Vividh Karayakari Sahakari Society Ltd., Rajpuri, Taluka – Murud Janjira, District – Raigad whereby he has requested the petitioner to take up the issue which the fishermen are likely to be faced on account of the construction in question.

¶23

6. The fishermen who are said to be likely to be affected by the construction in question have already formed a Cooperative Society for their welfare and accordingly if they were said to be affected in any manner on account of the construction of the Jetty, it was for the Cooperative Society to have taken up the matter at all forums, including the authorities concerned and also, if advised, to take recourse to legal action which may be available under law.

¶24

¶25

404-PIL-22-2024

¶26

7. The petitioner is not even a member of the said Cooperative Society. Before approaching the Court by filing the present PIL petition, petitioner has not made even a single representation to any of the authorities, including the authorities of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), whose regulations are said to be violated.

¶27

8. In the aforesaid circumstances, we decline to exercise our discretion for entertaining the PIL petition at the behest of the petitioner.

¶28

9. The PIL petition is, thus, dismissed.

¶29

10. However, notwithstanding dismissal of the PIL petition, it will always be open to the Cooperative Society of the fishermen or any other fisherman or person affected of the vicinity to take up the cause before the forums/courts as may available under law.

¶30

(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶31

Digitally signed byPRAVIN PRAVINDASHARATH DASHARATHPANDIT PANDIT Date: 2024.02.27 09:44:23 +0530

¶32

Mahesh Harishchandra Mohite v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Gp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mahesh Harishchandra Mohite v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Gp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mangesh Bhaskar Mhatre Vs City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. Thr Managing Director and Ors.

Mahadev Baburao Pednekar and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Principal Secretary Public Works Department Kolhapur and Ors.

Afsar Nawaboddin Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Chief Engineer and Others

Babasaheb Haribhau Kharat and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

Manjula Biswas vs the Union of India

Smt. Homai Firdous Khergamvala and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra Thr Prin. Secretary, Dept. of Tourism and Cultural Affairas and Ors.

Prameya Welfare Foundation Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Kamal Jagdish Singh vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority

Mangesh Bhaskar Mhatre Vs City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. Thr Managing Director and Ors.

Workwell Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar Cooprative Societies and Anr.

Lyka Exports Limited vs Neeraj Agarwal Proprietor of Cadiz Lifesciences

Vikaram Pravinchandra Kapadia Vs Bonny Enterprises and 8 Ors.

Tejas Constructions and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Chandwad Municipal Council

Suhas Anant Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary Dept of Ministry and Ors.