SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Bom) 638

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A. S. Gadkari, Kamal Khata, JJ.
Latika Sarejrao Bhosale  - Petitioner
Versus
The Additional Collector and ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No.7651 of 2022
Decided On : 08-04-2025

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Nitin P. Deshpande for Petitioner.
Mr. A.A. Alaspurkar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 & 5-State.
Mr. Laxman Deshmukh i/by Adv. Rupesh Zade for Respondent No.4.

The court affirmed that a Gram Panchayat can revoke a mining NOC based on community consensus and environmental concerns, emphasizing local governance rights.

Headnote:

(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Petition challenging the Resolution of Gram Panchayat regarding mining operations - The petitioner sought to quash the Resolution and obtain extension of mining lease - The Gram Panchayat revoked the NOC based on unanimous opposition from villagers citing environmental concerns. (Paras 1-11)

(B) Environmental Protection Act, 1986 - The court emphasized that the NOC granted does not provide immunity from revocation based on environmental conditions and community welfare. (Paras 8-10)

(C) The court found that the villagers' unanimous decision to revoke the NOC was valid and justified due to potential harm to agriculture and local livelihoods. (Paras 7-10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner applied for a mining lease and received an NOC from the Gram Panchayat, which was later revoked following community opposition citing environmental and safety concerns.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the Gram Panchayat's decision to revoke the NOC, affirming the villagers' right to protect their environment and livelihoods.

Issues: The main issues included the validity of the Gram Panchayat's Resolution to revoke the NOC and the implications of environmental regulations on mining activities.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the NOC can be revoked based on community consensus and environmental considerations, emphasizing the importance of local governance in resource management.

Result: Petition rejected.

JUDGMENT :

Kamal Khata, J.

1) By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner seeks the following reliefs.

“A. this Hon’ble Court may, by an appropriate writ, order or direction, quash and set aside the Resolution dated 28.07.2021 passed by the Gram Panchayat Kauthadi, Tal. Daund Dist. Pune (Exh.C) and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to avail of the extraction of minor minerals.

B. this Hon’ble Court may, by an appropriate writ, order or direction, direct the respondent No.1 to grant extension of the period of mining lease for further period that is lost due to the obstruction of Respondent No.4 Gram Panchayat.

(bb) that this Hon’ble Court may by way of appropriate writ, order or direction quash and set aside the Gram Sabha Resolution dated 2nd December 2021 and permit the Petitioners to go ahead with the quarrying operations in Gat No.181 situated at village Kavthadi, Taluka Daund, District Pune;”

2) Heard the counsels for the Petitioner and the Respondents and have perused the papers and proceedings minutely. The Petitioner who had applied for a mining lease/quarry on 26th October, 2020 was granted an NOC by the Grampanchayat on 10th May, 2021. On 30th June, 2021 the Additional Collector sanctioned the mining lease for a period of five years i.e. upto 29th June, 2026.

3) The Petitioner contends that, when she was ready for carrying out her activities, the Grampanchayat obstructed her activity on the basis of a Resolution by the Gram Sabha against the mining operations. In these circumstances, the Petitioner has filed the present Petition.

4) Mr. Nitin Deshpande, learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that, the Petitioner has complied with all the requisitions for the purposes of carrying out the activities of mining. He submits that, the Grampanchayat had also applied its mind and granted an NOC on 10th May, 2021. That, having granted the NOC and having permitted the Petitioner to carry on the mining activities, the Grampanchayat had no power to withdraw the NOC or pass its Resolution determining the Petitioner's rights to conduct mining. He submitted that, the same activity has been permitted barely 100 feet away from the Petitioner's land in Gut Nos.157 and 158 in village Jiregaon. He relied upon Government Resolution Oghih,e „Œƒ‡@iz-dz …Œˆ@iajk-† dated 19th October, 2020 contending that, once permission is granted by the Grampanchayat it cannot be revoked on any ground. He submits that, in view of the above, he is entitled to a writ of mandamus to set aside the Resolution of the Gram Sabha dated 2nd December, 2021 and permit the quarrying operations in Gut No.181 situated at village Kauthadi, Taluka Daund, District Pune.

5) Mr. Alaspurkar, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1 tendered the Affidavit in Reply of Jitendra Dudi, District Collector of Pune, dated 28th March, 2025. Relying on the said Affidavit he submitted that, the facts stated by the Petitioner were undisputed and the permissions had indeed been granted. However, the Grampanchayat by its Resolution dated 28th July, 2021 had communicated that, the villagers had opposed and complained of the mining activities and had unanimously sought cancellation of the NOC granted to the Petitioner. Subsequently, the Grampanchayat has cancelled the NOC by the unanimous Resolution revoking the permission of the Petitioner.

6) Mr. Deshmukh, learned Advocate for Respondent No.4 relied on the Affidavit of Ms. A.L. Chavan, Gram Sevak of village Kauthdai and submitted that, the NOC that was granted on 10th May, 2021 was illegal since no Gram Sabha was held for taking into account the opinions and objections of the villagers. He submitted that, a meeting of Gram Sabha was called on 28th July, 2021 wherein a unanimous decision to cancel the NOC was taken. He submitted that, pursuant to the visit and survey of the entire land by the Circle Officer he forwarded a Report to the Tehsildar. It was stated therein that, the houses of the people an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top