Bombay High Court
BOMBAY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION GROUP AND ANRversusTHE PANCHGANI HILL STATION MUNICIPAL CORPORATION COUNCIL AND ORS
- Disposal
- Allowed To be withdrawn
Holding
The contempt petition is disposed of as not pressed and the review petitions are dismissed.
Summary
The petitioners did not press their contempt petition against the Panchgani Hill Station Municipal Corporation, leading the court to dispose of the contempt petition as not pressed. The court also examined the pending review petitions arising from a public interest litigation concerning environmental matters and found that they no longer survived, ordering their disposal. No substantive merits were addressed because the petitions were not actively pursued. The judgment was delivered by Judges Sharmila U. Deshmukh and Neeraj P. Dhote on September 9, 2026. The court’s orders effectively close both the contempt and review proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether the contempt petition was pressed by the petitioners
- Whether the review petitions arising from the public interest litigation should be allowed to proceed
Subjects
- contempt
- review petition
- public interest litigation
- environmental law
- municipal corporation
Judgment
62-CP-268-2014.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 268 OF 2014
Bombay Environmental Action Group and Another ...Petitioners.
Versus
The Panchgani Hill Station
Municipal Corporation Council and Others ...Respondents.
WITH
REVIEW PETITION NO. 2 OF 2007
IN
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 39 OF 2003
Mahabaleshwar Giristhan Municipal Council ...Petitioner.
In the Matter in Between :
Bombay Environmental Action Group and Another ...Petitioners.
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Others ...Respondents.
WITH
REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO. 10127 OF 2012
IN
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 39 OF 2003
Table Land Vyapari Association Pachgani ...Petitioner.
In the Matter in Between :
Bombay Environmental Action Group and Another ...Petitioners.
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Others ...Respondents.
——————
Ms. Urvi Gupte (Through VC), for the PIL Petitioners.
Ms. Neha G. Deshpande with Dr. Uday Warunjikar, for the Review Petitioners.
Mr. Siddheshwar B. Kalel, AGP, for the Respondents-State.
——————
Gaikwad RD 1 of 2
62-CP-268-2014.doc
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
Date : September 09, 2026.
P. C. :
1. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners does not press
the contempt petition.
2. The Contempt Petition is disposed of as not pressed.
3. The Review Petitions do not survive and stand disposed of.
[Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
Digitally
signed by
RAJU
RAJU DATTATRAYA
DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD
GAIKWAD Date:
2026.09.10
12:49:22
+0530
Gaikwad RD 2 of 2
Checking your session…