Back
R. D. DHANUKA, S. G. MEHARE
Bapu Shankar Dighe – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT
R.D.Dhanuka, J. - The petitioners in Public Interest Litigation No.25 of 2019 have prayed for writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated 27th August 2014, 18th January 2017 and 9th April 2018 passed by the learned Minister (Revenue) and for an order and direction that the respondents authorities be directed to recover amount of Rs.1,74,00,636/- along with interest from the respondent no.7 in view of the order dated 13th July 2011 passed by the respondent no.4.
2. The petitioners have also prayed for writ of mandamus for restoration of the order dated 13th July 2011 passed by the respondent no.4 and for an order and direction to recover the penalty to the tune of Rs.1,74,00,000/- from the respondent no.7 imposed upon him in terms of the order dated 13th July 2011 passed by the respondent no.4.
3. The petitioner in writ petition and the respondent no.7 in the Public Interest Litigation No.25 of 2019 has filed the Writ Petition No.3180 of 2021 inter alia praying for a declaration that the order dated 21st September 2020 issued by the Deputy Secretary of Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai is illegal, arbitrary and against the provis
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the impugned orders granting extension of time for lifting sand were illegal, without authority of law, and without jurisdiction, and thus des....
The State Government could not have granted permission to the respondent no.3 Corporation to initiate the revision application after expiry of 55 years mechanically and that also without application ....
The main legal point established is the requirement for administrative actions to adhere to principles of natural justice and fairness, ensuring that decisions are made after considering all relevant....
The State Government does not have the power to review its own orders unless such power is specifically conferred by statute. The State Government cannot exercise its power of review after a long del....
Tender - State Government may, either suo moto at any time or on an application made within ninety days from date of communication of the order, call for examine record relating to any order passed o....
Excavation of ordinary earth for construction purposes did not attract levy of royalty and penalty under the provisions of Section 48(7) of the M.L.R. Code, 1966, especially when the excavated earth ....
Cognizance of offences under the MMDR Act requires a complaint from an authorized person; without it, proceedings cannot be sustained.
The burden to establish illegal mining operations and fiscal charges lies upon the authorities, and any ambiguity in penal provisions should be resolved in favor of the person subjected to penalty.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
