Disposed¶28

Santosh Laxman Chavan v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Prin. Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept. and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Jan 2025PIL/78/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Bombay (Alok Aradhe, CJ. & Sandeep V. Marne, J.), PIL No. 78 of 2024, order dated 01-07-2025: challenge to stone quarrying/transportation permissions granted at Gat No.5, village Mohodekarwadi, Taluka Wai, District Satara (M/s. Datta Krupa Suppliers); held air pollution/environmental damage claims are disputed questions of fact not examinable in summary jurisdiction under Article 226; disposed of with liberty to pursue alternative remedies; Rules 59 and 60, Maharashtra Minor Mineral Minding (Development and Regulation) Rules, 2013 referred.

What did the court decide?

PIL disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to him in law; the challenged permissions were not quashed. ¶28

Santosh Laxman Chavan vs the State of Maharashtra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

¶1

5-PIL-78-2024.doc

¶2

Pdp

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 78 OF 2024

Santosh Laxan Chavan

.. Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶9

Mr. Y. B. Legnare for petitioner.

¶10

Mrs. Neha S. Bhide, Govt. Pleader with Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Addl. Govt. Pleader and Mrs. G. R. Raghuwanshi, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 6, 8 and 9.

¶11

Mr. Akshay Naidu i/by Mr. Vishwanath Patil for respondent no.7 – MPCB.

¶12

Ms. Aditi Naikare a/w Mr. Pradeep J. Thorat for respondent no.10.

¶13

CORAM: ALOK ARADHE, CJ. & SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

¶14

DATE: 1^st JULY, 2025

¶15

ORAL ORDER [Per Chief Justice]:

¶16

Digitally signed by PRAVIN PRAVIN DASHARATH DASHARATH PANDIT PANDIT Date: 2025.07.01 18:54:23 +0530

¶17

1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parites, heard finally.

¶18

2. The petitioner claims to be a social activist. The petitioner has filed this Public Interest Litigation to quash and set aside permissions dated 17^th March, 2023 and 29^th September, 2023 granted by Additional Collector, Satara and Deputy Collector, Satara to M/s. Datta Krupa Suppliers for excavation and transportation of stone from Gat No.5 of village Mohodekarwadi, Taluka – Wai, District – Satara.

¶19

¶20

5-PIL-78-2024.doc

¶21

3. The facts giving rise to filing of the instant PIL in nutshell are that the Additional Collector, Satara on 6^th April, 2015 had granted permission to respondent no.12 – M/s. ITD Cementation India Limited for excavation and transportation of stone from Gat No. 31, admeasuring 2 H. 40 R., situate at village Mohodekarwadi, Taluka – Wai, District – Satara. The Additional Collector thereafter on 18^th October, 2022 granted permission to M/s Datta Krupa Suppliers for 500 brass from Gat No.5 of the said village and on 17^th March, 2023, the Additional Collector granted license for quarrying and transporting of stones to M/s. Datta Krupa Suppliers under Rules 59 and 60 of the Maharashtra Minor Mineral Minding (Development and Regulation) Rules, 2013 for 2500 brass from Gat No.5 of the said village from 17^th March, 2023 to 15^th July, 2023. The instant PIL has been filed in the year 2024.

¶22

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of excavation and transportation of stones by respondent no.10, the air quality of the village was deteriorated and respondent no.10 has indulged in illegal mining and has caused damage to the earth beyond permissible limit.

¶23

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Pleader, while inviting the attention of this Court to the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply, has submitted that the respondents-authorities have inspected the spot and have found that respondent no.10 is carrying out the excavation as per the license granted to it within the permissible limit. The submission regarding the air pollution is concerned, the same has also been denied in the affidavit-in-reply.

¶24

¶25

5-PIL-78-2024.doc

¶26

6. We have considered the submissions made on both the sides and have perused the record.

¶27

7. The issue with regard to air pollution and causing environmental damage are questions of fact which cannot be gone into in a summary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the same is dependent on adjudication of disputed question of fact. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the aforesaid questions cannot be examined in this PIL. We, therefore, grant the liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to him in law.

¶28

8. With the aforesaid liberty, PIL is disposed of.

¶29

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

¶30

Santosh Laxman Chavan v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Prin. Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Laxman Chavan v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Prin. Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

The Chamber of Tax Consultants through it President Mr Vijay Bhatt vs Director General Of Income Tax (Systems)

Ummed Singh Nahata vs Union of India Ministry of Environmental and Forest

Ummed Singh Nahata vs Union of India Ministry of Environmental and Forest

Sandeep Mohanlal Pahuja vs Chief Settlement Commissioner and Ors.

Sunil a Furtado vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (Mhada)

Ajitsingh Ghorpade vs the State of Maharashtra through Pincipal Secretary of Minister of Forest

Dipak Atmaram Shirodkar vs State of Maharashtra Throu. Govt Pleader and Ors.

Firoz Khurshed Jamshedji vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Fashion Tv India Pvt. Ltd. vs Satinder Pal Singh Ahuja and Ors.

Bindudevi Rajbhar vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Fashion Tv India Pvt. Ltd. vs Arvinder Singh Ahuja and Ors.

Shree Sharada Sahakari Bank Ltd. vs Shri. Ramesh R. Tambhale

Santosh Rajaram Kelkar and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kausshal Bagadia and Ors. vs the Divisional Joint Registrar Cooperativ Societys and Ors.