Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kishore Samrite vs Union Of India on 23 November, 2012
Writ Petition No.9839 of 2012
23/11/2012
The petitioner has sought following relief:-
(A). This Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to call for entire records like Form I
submitted by the respondent No.7 before
respondent No.2 and whole proceedings conducted before the respondent no.2 for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. (B) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate the matter for sstrict compliance of the Act, 1986 in the State of MP.
(C) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned communication being in violation of the Act, 1986 contained in Annexure P/3.
(D) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper be also awarded to the petitioner including cost of the petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no.7 has constructed a Mall without seeking environmental clearance from respondent no.3, so aforesaid directions may be issued.
From perusal of the record it appears that before filing of this petition, no representation was filed for ventilation of the grievances. The petitioner is seeking mandamus in the matter, but without filing any representation to respondent no.3, to perform its legal duties, this petition has been filed, while it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to first draw attention of the authority to discharge its duties and in case of default, the petitioner can approach this Court for issuing mandamus for discharging such duties.
It appears that the petition is premature. Petitioner may approach to the respondent no.3, for ventilation of the grievances.
In view of the aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of as premature.
No order as to costs.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain)
JUDGE JUDGE
manju
Writ Petition No.12984 of 2012
23/11/2012
Shri Balaji Akillawar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri K.K.Singh, Advocate for respondents no. 1 & 2. Shri Jaideep Singh, Advocate for the respondent no.3 -State.
Learned counsel for the State has prays three weeks' time to file reply in the matter.
The prayer made by respondent-State is opposed by the petitioner, but in the interest of justice, by way of last opportunity, prayer is allowed.
Be listed for hearing on 18/12/2012.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain)
JUDGE JUDGE
manju
Writ Appeal No.202 of 2012
04/09/2012
Shri Kishore Shrivastava, Senior Advocate, Shri Ashok Agrawal, Shri Anuj Agrawal, and Kumari Chhoti Bai, Advocates for the appellant in various matters.
Shri Vijay Pandey, Government Advocate, for the State. Shri Mukesh Agrawal, Advocate for the Madhya Pradesh Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited.
At the request of the appellant hearing of the appeal is adjourned for 20th September, 2012.
Be listed for hearing along with analogous matter on the aforesaid date.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain)
JUDGE JUDGE
manju