Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Vitthal S/O Manikrao Punwatkar vs M/S. Karnataka Emta Coal Mines Ltd. ... on 17 October, 2018

Author: S.M.Modak

Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari, S.M.Modak

                                                                                                                   3-pil 121-17.odt
                                                                    1/2                                                                   



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

                      PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION  NO.121   OF  2017

                                                  
             Vithhal Manikrao Punwatkar  -Vs.-  M.s.Karnataka Emta Mines ltd. and ors.
                                                  

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders                                          Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Mr.  H.R.Gadhia, counsel for the petitioner. 
                                           Mrs. Chandurkar, counsel for respondent no.3
                                           Mr. Pathan, AGP   for respondent nos.2,4 and 5. 
                                            



                                                    CORAM  : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI  &
                                                             S.M.MODAK,   JJ.
                                                    DATE     : 17.10.2018.


                        1.                 Heard   for   some   time.     It   appears   that   State

Government has already provided alternate site, where it is claimed that appropriate facilities are also established.

2. The petitioners have come up with a rejoinder and have insisted for holding of fresh survey as according to them few families which are project affected, are still not accounted for.

3. We can look into this grievance after reply to rejoinder comes. The facilities made available through public revenue cannot be allowed to lie idle.

Kavita ::: Uploaded on - 19/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/10/2018 00:45:03 ::: 3-pil 121-17.odt 2/2

4. We, therefore, direct the petitioners and other similarly situated persons who are beneficiaries of this PIL to shift to alternate site within 8 weeks.

5. List the matter after eight weeks.

                                                        JUDGE                                                     JUDGE




  Kavita

                   ::: Uploaded on - 19/10/2018                                                 ::: Downloaded on - 22/10/2018 00:45:03 :::