Bombay High Court
Thermal Power Station & 5 Others vs The State Of Maharashtra & 4 Others on 25 January, 2018
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
wp.1835.02
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
...
WRIT PETITION NO. 1835/2002
1) Thermal Power Station
Project Affected Persons and Association
Kachrala Regd. No. 476/2001
Through its President
Mahadeo s/o Wasudeo Mohitkar
2) Shri Mahadeo Wasudeo Mohitkar
3) Shri Kemdeo Arjun Tajne
4) Shri Y.K. Yergude
5) Shri Balu Ganpat Derkar
6) Shri Dinkar Kisan Somalkar
All residents of Kachrala
Tq. Bhadrawati, Dist.Chandrapur .. ..PETITIONERS
versus
1) The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
Revenue and Forest Department
Mantralaya. Mumbai.
2) The Collector,
Chandrapur.
3) the Chairman
Maharashtra State Electricity Board,
'Prakashgarh' Bandra (East) Mumbai.
4) The Chief Engineer (Gen.O & M )
Chandrapur Super Thermal Power Station
MSEB Urjanagar, Chandrapur.
5) Superintending Engineer (Civil)
Maharashtra State Electricity Board
Chandrapur. ..RESPONDENTS
............................................................................................................................................................................
None for petitioner and Respondents 4 and 5
Miss N.P. Mehta, AGP for respondents 1 and 2
Mr.M.V.Pimpalkhute, Adv.h/for Mr. A.D.Mohgaonkar, Adv.for Res.No.3
............................................................................................................................................................................
::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2018 01:18:16 :::
wp.1835.02
2
CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED: 25th January, 2018
ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
1. On 15th December 2017, we have recorded absence of counsel for
petitioners. After briefly looking into facts, prima facie, we felt that controversy may not
survive. Accordingly, we asked certain clarifications from respondents. Respondent no.2-
Collector, Chandrapur has filed an affidavit on 18.01.2018 stating that villagers who
initially opposed rehabilitation site, have now agreed to to it and shifted there.
2. Respondent nos. 3 to 5 namely, Maharashtra State Electricity Board
(then), have filed submissions on 22.01.2018. Its copy is also served upon counsel,
whose name appears as counsel representing the petitioners therein. They have pointed
out that out of 312 displaced persons, employment has been provided to several
persons. About 220 project affected persons are engaged and 55 persons are under
training as 'Pragat Kushal Prashikshnarthi'; 4 persons being trained under 'Sarva
Samaveshak Yojana', 32 persons are on waiting list and as per full Bench judgment of
this Court, in the case of Rajendra Pandurang Pagare vs. State of Maharashtra and
others, reported at 2009 (4) Mh.L.J. 961, the said persons will be given employment.
One out of 312 has given up the claim for employment and has accepted compensation.
3. In view of this affidavit, we find that practically the controversy has been
wp.1835.02
rendered infructuous and the grievance appears to be largely redressed.
4. Accordingly, we dispose of this Writ Petition. Rule discharged. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
sahare
