Bombay High Court
WP/646/2003 of CHOWGULE COMPANY LTD., Vs STATE OF GOA AND ANR., on 17 December 2003
COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 646 OF 2003 CHOWGULE COMPANY LTD., ....Petitioners Versus STATE OF GOA AND ANR., ....Respondents SHRI M.S. SONAK, Coram:- A.M.KHANWILKAR & P. V. HARDAS, JJ. Date:- 17th December, 2003 P.C.: Heard both sides. By this Writ Petition, under Article 226 of
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Conclusion
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO. 646 OF 2003
CHOWGULE COMPANY LTD.,
Versus
....Petitioners
STATE OF GOA AND ANR.,
....Respondents
SHRI M.S. SONAK,
-Coram:A.M.KHANWILKAR &P. V. HARDAS, JJ.-Date:17th December, 2003
P.C.:
Heard both sides. By this Writ Petition,under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India, the petitioners arechallenging the stop work notice, issuedby respondent no.2, dated 24th November2003. By way of amendment, thepetitioners are also challenging thevalidity of notification, dated 1stJune 1999, issued under Section 18 ofthe Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. Fromthe averments in the Writ Petition, itis crystal clear that wider issuesincluding regarding correctness ofSection 18 notification has been raisedby the respondents before the SupremeCourt by way of Interlocutory Application in Writ Petition No.337 of 1995. Is isalso brought to our notice, by thelearned Advocate General, that the impugned stop work notice has beenissued by the respondent no.2,only in compliance of the direction,issued by the Central EmpoweredCommittee, on 7th November 2003, whichCommittee has been constituted by theApex Court, vide Order, dated 9th May2002, in Writ Petition (Civil) No.202 of1995. Learned Advocate General has alsoplaced before us a copy of the Orderpassed by the Apex Court, dated 16thDecember 2002, in InterlocutoryApplication No.828 and connected cases.2. In this view of the matter, wedecline to exercise writ jurisdiction.Instead, we keep the remedy of thepetitioners of taking recourse toappropriate proceedings open, so as toenable the petitioners to approach theCentral Empowered Committee in terms ofOrder passes by the Supreme Court, dated9th May 2002, or the Apex Court, if soadvised.3. Petition disposed of on the aboveterms.
A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.
P. V. HARDAS, J.