Lokesh Kishor Asekar v. Western Coalfield Limited, Thr. Chairman/ Managing Director, Nagpur And Another
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 4842/2024 WRIT PETITION NO. 4842/2024 Shri Lokesh Kishor Asekar Shri Lokesh Kishor Asekar, , Aged about 39 years, Occ. Laborer, Aged about 39 years, Occ. Laborer, R/o. Kanakwadi, Ward No. 2, Wani, R/o. Kanakwadi, Ward No. 2, Wani, Tah. Wani, District Yavatmal, Pin Code 445304 Tah. Wani, District Yavatmal, Pin Code 445304 ....
.... PETITIONER(S) PETITIONER(S) // // VERSUS // VERSUS // (1) (1) Western CoalFields Limited Western CoalFields Limited, Through its Chairman/Managing Director, Through its Chairman/Managing Director, Head Quarter, 3, Seminary Hills, Nagpur Head Quarter, 3, Seminary Hills, Nagpur (2) (2) Western CoalFields Limited Western CoalFields Limited, , Through its Area General Manager, Through its Area General Manager, Wani North Area, Post Bhallar, Wani North Area, Post Bhallar, Tah. Wani, District Yavatmal Tah. Wani, District Yavatmal ....
.... RESPONDENT(S) RESPONDENT(S) ∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞ ∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞ Shri O. Deshpande, Advocate for the Petitioner(s) Shri O. Deshpande, Advocate for the Petitioner(s) Shri C.S. Samudra, Advocate for the Respondents Shri C.S. Samudra, Advocate for the Respondents ∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞ ∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞ CORAM : M.S. JAWALKAR & PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ.
CORAM : M.S. JAWALKAR & PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ.
JULY 18 JULY 18 , 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT :- (PER:- M.S. JAWALKAR, J.) :- (PER:- M.S. JAWALKAR, J.) .
Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties.
(2) By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner is praying for quashing and setting aside the communications dated 20/05/2019 and 18/06/2019 issued by the Respondent No. 2 and also for directions to the Respondents to grant employment to the Petitioner on the basis of Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 1992 to 2012.
(3) During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the Petitioner has placed on record some documents from the Irrigation Department and claimed that the land was irrigated one, and therefore, his claim ought not to have been denied for the reason that the land acquired is less than required to grant employment. (4) It appears that the order of Tribunal is of 2012 declaring the land of the Petitioner as dry crop land. It is the contention of the Petitioner that for about three years, though he was seeking information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, it was not provided by the Respondents, and therefore, he is constrained to file the present Writ Petition.
(5) The above said claim of the Petitioner cannot be entertained in the writ jurisdiction. Hence, we direct the Petitioner to appear before the Respondents with all necessary documents within a period of two weeks from today. The Respondents, by providing an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, shall decide the claim of the Petitioner within a period of four weeks thereafter. While deciding the claim of the Petitioner, the Respondents - Authorities may consider the delay on their part.
(6) With the above observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Pending Application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.) (PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.) (M.S. JAWALKAR, J.) (M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)