Sulochana Laxman Talwar Vs the State of Maharashtra

1.	M	y attention has be	en invited to the ord	er dated
4th	May 2005	passed	by this C	ourt	(A.M.Kha	nvilkar	J.) in
this	application.	In	paragraph 7	of	the	said	order,
this	Court	has recor	ded grievance	mad	e by	the	learned
A.P.P.	that	even	the basic	infra-	structure	suc	h as
racks	to store	the briefs	are not	made	availabl	e.	Now I

¶12

am informed that the racks have been now made available.

¶13

2.	The s	econd	aspect w	hich is no	ted in the	said
order is	that		even	proper	tables	and	chairs	are	not
available	in	the	P	ublic	Prosecutor	’s	office	to	hold
conferences	with		the	Inv	estigating	Of	ficers	and	other
Government	Officer	s.	In	parag	raph 9	of	the	said	order
this Court	noted	tha	t al	l th	ese as	pects	will	be	examined
by the	Secretary	to	the	Law	and	Jud	iciary	Departmen	t and

¶14

it is expected that the basic infra-structure will be

¶15

put in place before the Court reopens in June 2005.

¶16

3.		In order dated	19th Augus	t 2005, this	Court
noted	that	a proposal	has	been	submitted	by	the	Public
Prosecutor	to	the	Principal	Secretary	to	the	Law	and

¶17

				: 2 :
Judiciary	Departm	ent	of	the	State	Governm	ent on 18th
August	2005	for	provi	ding	adequate	numb	er of tables and
chairs.	It is	noted	in	the	said	order	that there are 43
Assistant	Governm	ent	Plea	ders	and	77	staff members
working	in hi	s o	ffice.		He	also	pointed out that
internet	facility		is	not	available	in	his office.The
other	grievance	which		was	made	on that	day was that

¶18

there is always an inordinate delay in clearing the

¶19

bills submitted by the Government Pleaders.

¶20

4.	The	Registry has placed on record a circular
issued	by	the Registrar General of this Court on	13th
August	2005.	By the said Circular, the	Registrar
General	has dir	ected that the concerned Officials o	f the
Appellate	Side	Registry shall, in any case, return	the
bills/statem	ents rece	ived from the office of	the
Governmen	t Pl	eader after duly certifying attendance	of
the	Public	Prosecutors and the Government	Pleaders
within	15 days	from the date of the receipt. A	Circular
of	the same	date issued by the Government Pleader	, High
Court,	Appellate	Side is also placed on record.	By the
said	Circular,	it is directed that the bills	/statements
of	the attenda	nce in the Courts in criminal matters	of
the	Public	Prosecutors for preceding month shall	be
prepared	and	forwarded to the office of the	Registrar
General	for	necessary certification on or before	15th
day	of imme	diately succeeding month. There is a	report
dated	17th	October 2005 submitted by Shri	V.P.Patil,
Under	Secretary	(Law) of the Government of M	aharashtra

¶21

: 3 :

¶22

dated	18th	Oc	tober	2005	statin	g t	herein	that	from	the
date	of	receipt	of	the	bill	till	clear	ance	of the	bill,
the	entire	process	of	che	cking	and	app	roving	the	bills
will	be c	ompleted	within	a	period	of	28	to	30 days.	It

¶23

is stated that only in case there is some objection in

¶24

the bill, it may consume some additional time.

¶25

5.	T	hese reports which are on record indicate t	hat
the	bills/state	ments will be submitted	by	th	e office	of
the	Government	Pleader to the office	of	this	Court	for
certification	within	a period of 15	days	from	the	expiry
of	every	calender month and if	the	bill	s/statements	are
submitted	within	the said period	of	15	days,	the
Registry	of	this Court will certify	the	same	within	a
period o	f 15	days from the date of	recei	pt t	hereof.	The
report	of t	he Law Ministry indic	ates	that	it	will
require	maximum	30 days time to	process	and	clear	the
bills.	The	reports submitted	that	t	he	learned
Government		Pleader, Registrar General	of	this	Court	and
the	Under	Secretary (Law) are acc	epted.		The st	atements
made	in the	reports will take	care	of	the	major

¶26

grievance made by the learned Public Prosecutor

¶27

regarding delay in clearance of the bills.

¶28

6.		It is repo	rted to	me that th	e proposal	submitte	d
by	the	office	of	the	Public	Prosec	utor	on	18th		August
2005		for providi	ng	adequa	te nu	mber	of	tab	les a	nd	chairs
is	still	pending	with	the	State	Gove	rnm	ent.	In	view	of
the	order	passed by	thi	s Co	urt on	4th		May	2005,	the	said

¶29

				: 4 :
proposal		ought	to	have been proc	essed	long	b	ack.	This
Court	h	as	recor	ded in the	earlier	order		the e	xpectation
that	by	J	une	2005 necessary	facili	ties w	ill	be	provided
in	the	offic	e	of the Public	Prose	cutor.		However,	basic
amenities		such	as	adequate number	of	tables		and	chairs
are	not	pro	vided	till today.	The	requir	em	ent of	E-mail
facility	is		also	genuine. The	Stat	e	Go	vernment	will
have	to	co	nsider	proposal su	bmitted	by		the	Public
Prosecutor		in	the	light of the	ob	servation		made by	this
Court	in	the	orde	r dated 4th May	20	05.	It	is	expected
that	the		conc	erned Department	of	the St	ate	G	overnment
will co	nsider	the	o	rders passed by	this	Court		on 4th	May

¶30

2005 and 19th August 2005 and will take appropriate

¶31

action immediately.

¶32

7.		Subject to what	is recorded	above, Criminal
Application		shall be	treated	as disposed	of.	Co	pies of
this	order	be forw	arded t	o the le	arned Adv	ocate	General
of the		State of	Maharashtra	as well	as to	the	Chief
Secretary		to the	Govern	ment of	Maharashtra,		Principal
Secretary,		Finance	Department,	and	Principal		Secretary

¶33

to the Law and Judiciary Department of the State of

¶34

Maharashtra.

¶35

Liberty to the Public Prosecutor to apply in

¶36

case of any difficulty.

¶37

Judge.

Sulochana Laxman Talwar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sulochana Laxman Talwar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarjorao Bapu Shinde Vs Changuna Sarjerao Shinde and Anr.

Ashok Bhimrao Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kishore Avinash Dandvate Vs Madhav Waman Datar

Nasareen Karim @ Raju Shaikh Vs Karim @ Raju Najaruddin Shaikh and Anr.

Mangesh Suryakant Parkhe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nasareen Karim @ Raju Shaikh Vs Karim @ Raju Najaruddin Shaikh and Anr.