✦ Bombay High Court · 16 Nov 2010

Satyavan Keshav Majrekar v. Revenue Commissioner, Konkan Division

Writ Petition No. 838 of 2010S KATHAWALLA

Case at a glance

Decided
16 Nov 2010
Bench
S KATHAWALLA

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 22. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits 2 WP.838.2010 of the controversy sought to be raised in this petition, we dispose of this petition with a direction in exercise of our suo-moto powers under Article 226 of the Constitution…

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 838 OF 2010 Satyavan Keshav Majrekar versus Revenue Commissioner, Konkan Division and others Petitioner Respondents Rajeshree P. Phadke for petitioner. None for the respondents. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 16th November 2010 P. C. :

1.

By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for directions to the respondent authorities being the Revenue Commissioner, Konkan Bhavan, Navi Mumbai, The District Collector, Ratnagiri, the Tahsildar and Naib-Tahsildar of Rajapur Tahsil and officers of Forest Department and the Police Department of the State Government to take action against respondent no.10 Mangesh Sitaram Manjrekar and respondent no.11 Anil Sitaram Manjrekar in the matter of cutting trees and for destroying the mangroves. It appears that the Naib Tahsildar, Rajapur has lodged a complaint against respondent nos.10 and 11 on 19th November 2005 being CR No.15 of 2005 at Rajapur Police Station and the criminal case arising therefrom being Regular Case No.56 of 2006 is pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajapur.

2.

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits 2 WP.838.2010 of the controversy sought to be raised in this petition, we dispose of this petition with a direction in exercise of our suo-moto powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India that the learned JMFC, Rajapur shall hear and decide Regular Case No.56 of 2006 and any other application which the petitioner may have filed in relation to cutting of the trees/mangroves on the land in question, as expeditiously as possible and in any case within four months from receipt of a copy of this order. We also leave it open for the petitioner to pursue any other remedies including approaching the Forest Department. The petition stands disposed of in terms of the above directions. Writ to be sent to the Court of JMFC, Rajapur forthwith. CHIEF JUSTICE S.J.KATHAWALLA J.

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Constitution of India — art. 226.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Bombay High Court, on 16 Nov 2010. The bench was S KATHAWALLA.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Bombay High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Writ Petition No. 838 of 2010). ← Search more judgments