Disposed¶18

Rajendra Mahadev Patil v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Principal Secretary Environment and Climate Change and Ors.

Bombay HC2 May 2025WP/5646/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court writ petition disposed with direction to MPCB; air quality monitoring system; real-time air quality data; villages Wahal, Ulwe, Padeghar, Bambavi pada, Bambavi Koliwada; Taluka Panvel, District Raigad; illegal and non-compliant stonecrushing units; pollution complaints; opportunity of being heard; four-week timeline; Rajendra Mahadev Patil v. State of Maharashtra; MPCB undertaking on complaints.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the MPCB to consider the representation/complaints submitted by the petitioner and take appropriate action, after affording the petitioner as well as offending stone crushing units or persons causing pollution an opportunity of being heard, within a period of four weeks. ¶18

Rajendra Mahadev Patil vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Principal Secretary Environment and Climate Change and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the MPCB should be directed to install and operate an Air Quality Monitoring System at key locations in villages of Wahal, Ulwe, Padeghar, Bambavi pada and Bambavi Koliwada and to make real-time air quality data publicly available. +1 more

¶14

Ratio / Principle

No useful purpose would be served by keeping the writ petition pending; accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the MPCB to consider the representation/complaints submitted by the petitioner and to take appropriate action.

¶18

Key takeaways

The MPCB's action on the representation/complaints must be taken after affording the petitioner as well as the offending stone crushing units or persons causing pollution an opportunity of being heard, within a period of four weeks.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Petitioner, a resident of Wahal Village, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad, sought directions to the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) to (i) install and operate an Air Quality Monitoring System at key locations in villages Wahal, Ulwe, Padeghar, Bambavi pada and Bambavi Koliwada and make real-time air quality data publicly available, and (ii) take immediate action against illegal and non-compliant stonecrushing units in those villages. Counsel for MPCB submitted that suitable action on the petitioner's complaints would be taken after affording the petitioner and the offending stone crushing units or persons causing pollution an opportunity of being heard. The Division Bench (Alok Aradhe, CJ. and M. S. Karnik, J.) held that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petition pending and disposed of the writ petition, directing the MPCB to consider the representation/complaints and take appropriate action after affording the said opportunity of being heard, within four weeks.

¶1

7-WP-5646-2025.doc

¶2

Pdp

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 5646 OF 2025

¶5

Rajendra Mahadev Patil .. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Mr. Vinod Sanvikar i/by Shakuntala Sangvikar for petitioner.

¶10

Mrs. Savita A. Prabhune, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2.

¶11

Mr. Jitendra Jagtap for respondent no.4 – MPCB. Mr. Rahul Sinha i/by DSK Legal for respondent no.5.

¶12

CORAM: ALOK ARADHE, CJ. & M. S. KARNIK, J. DATE: 2^nd MAY, 2025

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

1. The petitioner is a resident of Wahal Village, Taluka - Panvel, District – Raigad. In this writ petition, the petitioner, inter alia, seeks a direction to the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) to install and operate Air Quality Monitoring System at key location in villages of Wahal, Ulwe, Padeghar, Bambavi pada and Bambavi Koliwada and to make real-time air quality data publicly available. The petitioner also seeks a direction to respondent no.4-MPCB to take immediate action against illegal and non-compliant stonecrushing units operating in aforesaid villages.

¶15

¶16

7-WP-5646-2025.doc

¶17

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that with regard to his grievance, the petitioner has submitted various complaints to the MPCB. Mr. Jitendra Jagtap, learned counsel who has entered appearance on behalf of the MPCB, on instructions, submits that suitable action on the representation/complaints submitted by the petitioner, after affording him as well as offending stone crushing units or persons causing pollution an opportunity of being heard, shall be taken.

¶18

3. In view of the aforesaid submission, no useful purpose would be served by keeping this writ petition pending. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the MPCB to consider the representation/complaints submitted by the petitioner and to take an appropriate action, after affording the petitioner as well as offending stone crushing units or persons causing pollution an opportunity of being heard, within a period of four weeks from today.

¶19

(M. S. KARNIK, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶20

Digitally signed by PRAVIN PRAVINDASHARATHPANDIT DASHARATHPANDITDate:2025.05.03 11:07:33 +0530

¶21

Rajendra Mahadev Patil v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Principal Secretary Environment and Climate Change and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Mahadev Patil v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Principal Secretary Environment and Climate Change and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Onkar Sanghatit Mahila Bachat Gat through Its President Shobha Vasant Khirwala vs the Commissioner, Integrated Child Development Scheme

Anuj Krishnakumar Mittal vs State of Maharashtra

Barket Contractors Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. vs Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Govindlal Vithaldas Sindhwad vs Dotom Superstructure LLP

Maharashtra Public Service Commission through Its Secretary vs Vast India Private Ltd.

F. a. Enterprises vs Konkan Irrigation Development Corporation and 2 Ors.