This Public Interest Writ Petition challenging illegal fund collection by police officials was disposed of as an investigation directed by the High Court had already been completed, with appropriate action initiated upon issuance of a show cause notice.
Petition disposed of; no statutory consequence to record as case decided on merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Appellate Side
PUBLIC INTEREST WRIT PETITION NO.60 OF 2005
Dattatray Pirgonda Patil. .. .. Petitioner
v/s.
State of Maharashtra & ors. .. Respondents
Ms.T.K. Bairagdar i/by M/s.M.P.Vashi & Associates
for petitioner.
Mr.N.P.Deshpande, AGP for respondent No.1.
Mr.G.M.Savagare for respondent No.6.
Mr.Kuldeep S. Patil for respondent Nos.2 to 5.
Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are served.
-----
CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE, ACTING C.J. &
V.M. KANADE, J.
DATED : 8th February 2007
P.C. :
1. Heard Ms.Bairagdar in support of this
Petition. She is representing Mr.Vashi who has
filed this Petition and other Counsel appearing
for the various respondents.
2. The Petition is filed by a resident of
Ichalkaranji, District Kolhapur, making a
grievance that when respondent Nos.2 to 5 were
working in district Kolhapur in the Police
department some where in April 2001, they took
steps to construct a building of Jaysingpur Police
Station and for that purpose funds were collected
from the members of public. The Petitioner
submits that the funds were illegally collected
-2-
without issuing any receipts and that there was no
Government sanction and, therefore, he sought an
inquiry into the matter. The Petition came up
before the earlier Division Bench presided over by
the Chief Justice Dalveer Bhandari (as His
Lordship then was in this Court) and Dr.Justice
Chandrachud and on 17th October 2005 the Court
passed an order recording that an investigation
had already been directed to be conducted by one
Mr.K.K.Pathak, Special Inspector General of
Police. The Court, therefore, directed the
Director General of Police Dr.P.S.Pasricha to file
his report with respect to the action taken on the
report of Mr.Pathak.
3. Mr.Deshpande, learned AGP, has tendered to
us a Report dated 6th January 2006 of Dr.Pasricha.
The report states that on receiving this report of
Mr.Pathak, further actions are being taken and
amongst others a show cause notice has been issued
to Mr.Sanjay Tate, respondent No.5 in this
Petition, for further appropriate action.
4. We must note that when the above order was
passed by the earlier Bench on 17th October 2005,
the Court directed the Director General of Police
to file a report and also observed that in view of
-3-
the Affidavit which was filed by the Director
General in the present proceeding, in fact,
nothing really survives in the Petition. The
matter was principally kept alive for the Director
General of Police to file his report. Now this
report is filed and which indicates that
appropriate action is being taken. Nothing
further needs be done. Petition will stand
disposed of while observing that the Director
General of Police will take necessary action after
issuing this show cause notice and after giving an
opportunity to the officer concerned. The report
tendered by Mr.Deshpande is taken on record.
5. Petition disposed of.
(ACTING C.J.)
(V.M. KANADE, J.)
Dattatray Pirgonda Patil
State of Maharashtra
Mr. Sanjay Tate
H.L. Gokhale
V.M. Kanade
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court