← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/3281/2014dismissedrule discharged

Yogesh Goutam Nimsatkar v. The General Manager Wani North Area Western Coalfields Ltd., Yavatmal And Anothers

2015-03-24Hon'Ble Smt. Justice V.A. Naik,Hon'Ble Shri Justice A.M. Badar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.3281/2014 Yogesh Goutam Nimsatkar Vs. The General Manager, Wani and another. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders.

Orders.

Shri M. R. Pillai, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S.C. Mehadia, Advocate for the respondents. C ORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & A.M. BADAR , JJ.

DATED : MARCH 24, 2015.

By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to provide employment to the petitioner as a project affected person.

The land of the father of the petitioner was acquired by the respondents in the year 1990. The petitioner was born on 6.4.1991. It is the case of the petitioner that after the petitioner attained majority, the petitioner made an application to the respondents for seeking appointment as project affected person due to acquisition of his father's land but the application was not favourably considered. The petitioner has filed the instant petition in the aforesaid set of facts.

In the circumstances of the case, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted and the respondents cannot be directed to provide the employment to the petitioner. The land of the petitioner's father was acquired in the year 1990 and the petitioner is born on 6.4.1991. There is nothing in the scheme of the respondents which entitles the petitioner to seek the employment in the respondents-Corporation as project affected person due to acquisition of land in the year 1990. In the absence of any right in favour for the petitioner to seek employment after more than 25 years from the date of acquisition of the land, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted.

In the circumstance of the case, we dismiss the petition with no order as to costs.

JUDGE JUDGE Ambulkar