Disposed¶6

Nidhi Yatin Shelare v. Government of Maharashtra, Thr. Its Chief Secretary, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC7 Jan 2026PIL/19/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (Division Bench), 7 January 2026, PIL No. 19 of 2025, 2026:BHC-NAG:221-DB; Nidhi Yatin Shelare v. Government of Maharashtra; PIL disposed with direction to Chief Officer (Respondent No.4) to decide representation on encroachment of Government land within 8 weeks and communicate decision within 2 weeks; Chief Officer's failure to reply to notices dated 05.03.2025 noted; no statute or precedent discussed.

What did the court decide?

PIL disposed of with direction to Respondent No.4 - Chief Officer to treat the PIL as the petitioner's representation and take a decision thereon in accordance with law within eight weeks of production of a copy of the order and the PIL, communicating the decision to the petitioner within two weeks of the decision. ¶6

Nidhi Yatin Shelare vs Government of Maharashtra, Thr. Its Chief Secretary, Mumbai and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶6

Issue for consideration

Whether the Chief Officer was obliged to act on the alleged encroachment upon Government land and to take a decision on the petitioner's representation. +1 more

¶2

Court's answer

Observation that, since the issue involved relates to encroachment upon Government land, the Chief Officer ought to have taken cognizance (in the context of no reply being filed despite notices dated 5th March, 2025).

¶3

Ratio / Principle

The present Public Interest Litigation is disposed of with a direction to the Chief Officer to treat the PIL as the petitioner's representation and to take a decision thereon in accordance with law.

¶4

Key takeaways

Respondent No.4 - Chief Officer shall take a decision within eight weeks from the date of production of a copy of the order along with a copy of the PIL, and shall communicate such decision to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of the decision.ratio¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Public Interest Litigation alleging encroachment upon Government land and inaction by the Chief Officer in not removing the encroachment and not deciding the petitioner's representation; notices issued to the Chief Officer on 5th March, 2025 went unanswered with no reply filed to the PIL. The Division Bench (Anil S. Kilor and Raj D. Wakode, JJ.) disposed of the PIL without deciding the merits, directing Respondent No.4 - Chief Officer to treat the PIL as the petitioner's representation, take a decision thereon in accordance with law within eight weeks from production of a copy of the order along with a copy of the PIL, and communicate the decision to the petitioner within two weeks of the decision. The Court observed that the Chief Officer ought to have taken cognizance since the issue related to encroachment upon Government land. Neutral citation: 2026:BHC-NAG:221-DB.

¶1

2026:BHC-NAG:221-DB

¶2

980 PIL-19-2025

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.19 OF 2025

¶6

[Mrs. Nidhi Yatin Shelare ..Vs.. Government of Maharashtra and Others]

¶7

______________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders.

¶8

Shri. T. Rahul, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri. D. P. Thakare, Addl. G. P. for Respondents/State. Shri. K. J. Tople, Advocate for Respondent No.4.

¶9

CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ. DATE : 7 th JANUARY, 2026 .

¶10

. Heard.

¶11

In the present Public Interest Litigation, the grievance raised by the petitioner is as regards the alleged encroachment upon Government land and the inaction on the part of the Chief Officer in not removing such encroachment and in not taking any decision on the representation made by the petitioner.

¶12

Despite sufficient time has lapsed after notices were issued to the Chief Officer on 5^th March, 2025, no reply has been filed in response to the present PIL. Since the issue involved relates to encroachment upon Government land, the Chief Officer ought to have taken cognizance.

¶13

Be that as it may, we are of the opinion that the present Public Interest Litigation can be disposed of with a direction to the Chief Officer to treat the present PIL as a representation of the petitioner and to take a decision thereon in accordance with law.

¶14

980 PIL-19-2025

¶15

¶16

Respondent No.4 – Chief Officer shall take a decision within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order along with a copy of the PIL. Such decision shall be communicated to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of the decision.

¶17

Accordingly, the Public Interest Litigation is disposed of.

¶18

(RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.)

¶19

TAMBE

¶20

Signed by: Mr. Ashish Tambe Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 08/01/2026 19:17:46

Nidhi Yatin Shelare v. Government of Maharashtra, Thr. Its Chief Secretary, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nidhi Yatin Shelare v. Government of Maharashtra, Thr. Its Chief Secretary, Mumbai 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Prakruti Foundation, Thr. Its President, Deepak Bharatsingh Dixit vs Union of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi and Others

Santosh Tursiram Chute and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. District Collector, Gondia and Rehabilitation Officer

Girdharilal S/O. Laxmandas Harwani Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Urban Development Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Rayat Kranti Sanghatana Karad through Vice President M.Ambekari vs Chief Executive Officer Karad and Ors.

Mozam Ali Mir vs the State Election Commissioner

Gurdeep Singh Sachar vs State of Maharashtra through Its Chief Secretary

Samir Jagannath Tivrekar vs Ratnagii Municipal Council and Ors.

Amogh Nandakumar Kulkarni vs Karjat Municipal Council and Anr.

Canara Bank, through Its Branch Manager, Somalwada Br., Nagpur vs Smt. Aruna Wd/O. Sanjay Ramtekkar and Others

Prakruti Foundation, Thr. Its President, Deepak Bharatsingh Dixit vs Union of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi and Others

Manoj S/O Chandrabali Choube vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Revenue and Forest, Mumbai and Ors.

Namdeo S/O Anandrao Gadling vs Shri. Vikas Kharge, Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mumbai

Union of India, Thr. Secretary, Dept. of Defence Production, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and Ors. vs Kendriya Sevanibritya Karmachari Samiti, Thr. Secretary, M. P. Bagde, Nagpur and Others

M/S Vidarbha Bottlers (P) Ltd., Nagpur Thr. Its Director, Suresh Bhaiyalal Jaiswal vs State of Maha., Thr. Secretary, Home Department, Mumbai and Anr.