← Library
Bombay High CourtRA/274/2017disposed offdismissed for default

Vileen Dattatraya Padwal And Others v. The Union Of India And Others

2018-04-13Hon'Ble Shri Justice S V Gangapurwala,Hon'Ble Shri Justice S. M. Gavhane2 pages

( 1 ) ra274.17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 274 OF 2017 IN WP/7768/2016 VILEEN DATTATRAYA PADWAL AND OTHERS

VERSUS

THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Mr.G.B. Kadlag, Advocate for the applicants.

Mrs.Vaishali Patil-Jadhav, AGP for respondent/State. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA & S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.

DATED :

13.04.2018 P.C. :- 1.

The petitioner seeks review of the order passed by this Court on 06.11.2017 disposing of Writ Petition No. 7768 of 2016. The petitioner was challenging the no-objection certificate issued to original respondent No.5 and the licence granted to respondent No.6 for mining operations. In the said writ petition also other prayers were made to pay compensation to the petitioners and the other villagers of the village Karjule, so as to conduct inquiry. On 06.11.2017 when the petition had come up for hearing, none appeared for the writ petitioners/review applicants. The statement is made in the affidavit by the Tahsildar, Sangamner that the mining activity was permitted after recommendation from the District Mining Committee and the Pollution Control Board

( 2 ) ra274.17 and it has also given certificate. We had also observed that in the affidavit of respondent No.6, it is stated that on 30.11.2016 they have stopped quarry operations and further they do not require Gat No.63/3 for their project.

2.

In view of the said statement, we disposed of the petition. We had considered that the licence and permission was granted for mining after recommendation from the District Mining Committee and also after certificate issued by the Pollution Control Board. 3.

Even otherwise, no quantum of compensation was specified in the petition. There are also other facts about the accident and injury caused to the petitioners, which are not specifically spelt out.

4.

Considering overall aspects, we have disposed of the writ petition.

5.

In view of above, no case for review is made out. The review application is disposed of. No costs. [S.M.GAVHANE,J.] [S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.] /2018/ 18/ snk APR ra274.17