Disposed¶¶9

Gajanan S/O Balisaoji @ Baliram Barapatre v. the Municipal Council Khapa, Thr. Chief Officer, Saoner, Nagpur and Others

Bombay HC27 Feb 2025WP/7584/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chilly grinding machine; closure direction dated 21.11.2022 by Municipal Council Khapa (respondent No. 1); purported basis was Pollution Control Board (respondent No. 2) communication dated 2.11.2022; Board's letter contained no closure direction, only that the matter is within the purview of the local body to take appropriate action as applicable; impugned communication quashed and set aside; writ petition disposed of; respondent No. 1 free to act per applicable law; Nagpur Bench; decision date 27-02-2025.

What did the court decide?

Impugned communication dated 21.11.2022 issued by respondent No. 1 quashed and set aside; respondent No. 1 left free to take any action against the petitioner in terms of the law as applicable. ¶¶9

Gajanan S/O Balisaoji @ Baliram Barapatre Vs the Municipal Council Khapa, Thr. Chief Officer, Saoner, Nagpur and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned communication dated 21.11.2022 issued by respondent No. 1 quashed and set aside; respondent No. 1 left free to take any action against the petitioner in terms of the law as applicable.

¶¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the communication dated 21.11.2022 issued by respondent No. 1 directing the petitioner to close down the chilly grinding machine with immediate effect can be sustained, given that the Pollution Control Board's communication dated 2.11.2022 contains no such direction for closure.

¶¶9

Court's answer

On perusal, the Pollution Control Board's communication dated 2.11.2022 contains no direction for closure of the chilly grinding machine; it only states that the matter is within the purview of the local body (the Municipal Council), which should take appropriate action as applicable.

¶¶9

Ratio / Principle

The impugned communication dated 21.11.2022 issued by respondent No. 1 cannot be sustained and is quashed and set aside.

¶¶9

Key takeaways

Respondent No. 1 remains free to take any action against the petitioner in terms of the law as applicable.obiter¶¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench — Writ Petition No. 7584 of 2022 (Gajanan s/o Balisaoji @ Baliram Barapatre Vs. The Municipal Council Khapa and ors), decided 27-02-2025 by Avinash G. Gharote & Abhay J. Mantri, JJ.: The Municipal Council Khapa (respondent No. 1) had, by communication dated 21.11.2022, directed the petitioner to close down his chilly grinding machine with immediate effect, stating the reason to be a communication dated 2.11.2022 of the Pollution Control Board (respondent No. 2). Perusal showed that the Board's communication contained no direction for such closure and merely stated that the matter was within the purview of the local body, which should take appropriate action as applicable. Holding the impugned communication unsustainable, the Court quashed and set it aside, left respondent No. 1 free to take any action against the petitioner in terms of the law as applicable, and disposed of the petition accordingly.

Gajanan S/O Balisaoji @ Baliram Barapatre v. the Municipal Council Khapa, Thr. Chief Officer, Saoner, Nagpur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gajanan S/O Balisaoji @ Baliram Barapatre v. the Municipal Council Khapa, Thr. Chief Officer, Saoner, Nagpur and Others

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

Aarthik Rozgar Va Swayam Rozgar Seva Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Tumsar, Bhandara Thr. Secy. vs Municipal Council Kalmeshwar - Brahmani, Nagpur Thr. Its Chief Officer and Others

Sau. Sangeeta @ Sangita W/O Mohan Jadhav vs the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati and Others

The Blind Relief Association Nagpur, Thr. Its Secretary and Others vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Its Secretary, Persons With Disabilities Welfare Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Jagannath Kashiram Batwade Vs Deputy Director of Education, Amravati Division, Amravati and Others

Sohail Ahmed Ansari Khaleel Ahmed vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Education and Sports Department, Mumbai and Others

Alhuda Society Welfare Society, Malkapur, Buldhana Thr. Secy., Sayyed Ibrahim Sayyed Yasin and Anr. vs Education Officer, (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Buldhana and Ors.