Disposed

Vijay Rajaram Vadane v. Gr Infra Project Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Jul 2024PIL/81/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PIL alleging illegal mining excess by permit holders. The Court dispensed with notice to some respondents, held that suitable penal orders had been challenged, and directed the petitioner to make a detailed representation to the concerned Collector for redressal, disposing of the petition with liberty.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to make representation to the Collector concerned within a fortnight; Collector to decide within eight weeks.

Vijay Rajaram Vadane vs Gr Infra Project Ltd. and… — Environment and Pollution | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

402-PIL-81-2024

¶2

Pdp

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 81 OF 2024

¶5

Vijay Rajaram Vadane .. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

GR Infra Project Ltd. & Ors. .. Respondents

¶8

Mr. Ashok Tajane for petitioner.

¶9

Mr. P. P. Kakade, Government Pleader with Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Addl. Govt. Pleader, Mrs. G. R. Raghuwanshi, AGP for respondent nos.3 to 9, 11, 13 (State).

¶10

Mr. Akshay S. Pansare i/by Mr. Sachindra B. Shetye for respondent no.10 (MPCB).

¶11

CORAM: DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. & AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶12

DATE: 5^th JULY, 2024

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the Staterespondents.

¶15

2. In view of the proposed order, requirement of issuance of notice to respondent nos.1 and 2 is hereby dispensed with.

¶16

3. The grievance raised in this PIL petition is that the respondent nos.1 and 2, who are the permit holders for carrying out certain mining activities at certain pieces of land, have indulged in excavating more minerals than permitted.

¶17

¶18

402-PIL-81-2024

¶19

4. Our attention has been drawn to certain orders passed by the authorities imposing penalty. It has also been brought to our notice that the said orders of penalty have been challenged in appeals. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, states that in respect of certain other mining areas, no such order has been passed, imposing penalty, though illegality in excavation have been noted.

¶20

5. We, thus, find it appropriate to require the petitioner to make exhaustive and elaborate representation to the Collector concerned for redressal of the grievances, who may consider the same and take appropriate decision.

¶21

6. Thus, this PIL petition is finally disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to approach the Collector concerned by way of making detailed and elaborate representation giving all the necessary details and taking all the pleas, which may be available to the petitioner, within a fortnight from today. If in case any such representation is made to the Collector by the petitioner, the same shall be considered and appropriate decision thereon shall be taken by the Collector concerned within next eight weeks.

¶22

7. We make it clear that in case the petitioner makes any representation to the Collector, respondent nos.1 and 2 and all other concerned shall be given adequate notice of such proceeding to be drawn by the Collector.

¶23

Digitally signed by JAYANT JAYANT VISHWANATH VISHWANATH SALUNKE SALUNKE Date: 2024.07.05 19:32:02 +0530

¶24

(AMIT BORKAR, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶25

Vijay Rajaram Vadane v. Gr Infra Project Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Rajaram Vadane v. Gr Infra Project Ltd. 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

Vijaykumar Wasudeorao Karanjkar and Others Vs Nagpur Municipal Corporation Thr. the Municipal Commissioner, Nagpur and Ors.

Vaibhav Vyankatrao Kamble and Others vs the State of Maha., Thr. the Secretary, School Education and Sports Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Vanashakti Public Trust and an Environmental Non -Governmental Organization vs Muncipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai through Municipal Commissioner

Radhabai Chandrakant Mukne and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Chief Secretary and Ors.

Mohd Usman Shaikh vs Kansari Mata Adivasi Samajik Vikas Sanstha and Ors.

Mangesh Bhaskar Mhatre vs Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation through Commissioner and Ors.

Animal Rescue Trust through Vineeta Tandon vs Union of India ( Thr Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying) and Ors.

Ashish Dnyandeo Mane vs Pune Municipal Corporation Thr. Its Commissioner and Ors.

Gujarati Kelavani Mandal vs the General Manager, Central Railway

Raghunath Rangnath Chitre vs Mangesh Shankar Sasane Chairman of Obc Welfare Foundation

Gopikisan Radhakisan Bajoria vs Mr. Sunil Modi and Ors.

A Globia Creations vs the Directorate of Medical Education and Research through the Commissioner

Rishabh Rajendra Aggarwal and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Malhar Aneesha Deshmukh vs Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Anr.