Partly allowed

Suresh Shankar Choudhari v. the District Collector and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Aug 2008PIL/33/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Public interest litigation challenging renovation expenditure by a Municipal Council President without proper procedure. Court examined audit report, found no grave violation, and directed State to ascertain loss, complete work, or recover funds within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to State to ascertain loss, complete work or recover money from contractor/Chief Officer within six weeks and refund petitioner deposit of Rs. 1 lac.

Suresh Shankar Choudhari Vs the District Collector and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

P.I.L NO. 33 OF 2005

¶3

Suresh Shankar Choudhari .. Petitioner

¶4

V/s

¶5

The District Collector, Pune and Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Girish Godbole for Petitioner Mr.S.R.Nargolkar,AGP for Respondent nos. 1 and 2 Mr.Satish Phatak i/b Mrs Vanita V. Bakre-Shastry for Respondent no.3 Mr.Avinash K. Jalisatgi and Amol B. Desai for Respondent no.4

¶6

CORAM : SHRI J.N.PATEL & SHRI K.K.TATED, JJ. DATE : 13th August 2008.

¶7

P.C.:

¶8

1.	All	the pleadings i	n	the m	atter	ar	e	completed.
Therefore,	this Cou	rt is disposing of this petition at
the stage of	admissi	on itself.
2.	The	Petitioner who is		a former	Preside	nt	of	Talegaon
Dabhade		Municipal Council		has filed	this		petition	in
public		interest and in th	e	interest	of	Tal	egaon	Dabhade
Municipal		Council. It is		the case	of	th	e	Petitioner
that	the	Respondent no.3		has incurre	d	exp	enditure	in
renovation		of the office of		the Pre	sident	of		Municipal
Council		without following	pr	oper proce	dure	and		thereby
huge	amoun	t of money h	a	ve been	spent		without	any
justification		and therefore this		Court	should		direct	the

¶9

: 2 :

¶10

Respondent	no.1 to	forthwith	p	roceed	with	enquir	y which
was initiated	by the	Respondent	no.1	in	the	year	2002 in
respect	of irregular	ities comm	itted	by	Resp	ondent	no.1
within a	stipulated	period of	six	months	and	fi	x the
individual	liability	against		the	p	ersons	found
responsible	for loss	to	Tal	egaon	Dab	hade	Municipal
Council	and the	said amoun	ts	should	be	recovered	from

¶11

the individuals found to be responsible by initiating

¶12

proceedings against them.

¶13

3.	In	the	affidavit	in	repl	y filed	on	behalf	of the
Respon	dent	it	has	been		specifically	s	tated that	enquiry
has	been	co	nducted	in	the	matter	and	while	conducting
the	enquiry	the	audit	rep	ort	is	taken	into	consideration
and	the	Co	llector		did		not	find	any

¶14

illegality/irregularity to suggest any punitive action

¶15

against any officer of Municipal council.

¶16

4.	The	learned	Coun	sel appearin	g fo	r	the	petitioner
drew	our	attention	to	the report	of	the	auditor	and
particularly		the defic	iencies	pointed	out	in	the	audit
report	which	has	been	annexed	to	his	affidavit	in
rejoinder.		It is	s	ubmitted	that		Collector	without

¶17

making proper enquiry had given a clean chit to the then

¶18

Chief Officer of Talegaon Dabhade Municipal Council.

¶19

: 3 :

¶20

Therefore, an enquiry is an eye wash, which report has

¶21

been accepted by the State Government without any

¶22

application of mind.

¶23

5.	We have gone	throu	gh the	audit	or’s	repo	rt and	found
that	irregularities poin	ted	out by	the	Aud	itor	in	the
audit	report do not	indicate	that	there	has		been	grave
violation	of procedure	in		obtaining		san	ction	for
renovation	of the Ch	amber	of	the	Preside	nt	of	Municipal
Council	and Chief	Officer	has	vio	lated	p	roper	procedure
in	not inviting tenders	for	the	same.		The	Audit	report
only	points out to	certain	defici	ency	like	th	e wor	k was
not	completed by	the	contractor	but	report		does	not

¶24

quantify the loss suffered by the Municipal Council in

¶25

the matter.

¶26

6.	We, th	erefore,	dispose of	this	petition	with
directions	to	the	Respondent State	to	ascertain	the
valuation	of the	incom	plete work which	is	pointed	out in
the	auditor’s	report	and after	making	necessary	enquiry
to	get the	work	completed from	the	contractor	concerned
or	recover	money	from the	contra	ctor/Chief	Officer
whosoever	is	found	responsible and w	e exp	ect that	this
exercise	will	be	completed within six	weeks	from	the
date o	f receipt	of	our order.	Petitioner	to	communicate

¶27

this order to Principal Secretary, Urban Development,

¶28

: 4 :

¶29

Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶30

The sum of Rs.1 lac deposited by the Petitioner be refunded to him. ( J.N.Patel,J.) ( K.K.Tated,J.)

Suresh Shankar Choudhari v. the District Collector and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Shankar Choudhari v. the District Collector and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baban Narkar Vs Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. and Anr.

Baban Narkar Vs Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. and Anr.

Bhaskar Raghunath Borade and Anr. Vs Nashik Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Shivajirao Eknath Mangale and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Laxmi Market Bhajipala Vyapari Sanghatana and Anr. Vs Kalyan Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Kalyan and Ors.

Aniruddha Vasant Bhor Vs the Commissioner - Thane Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Prashant Sakharam Magdum and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Prashant Sakharam Magdum and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bandra Navbharat Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Ors. Vs the Municipal Corpn. of Brihanmumbai and Ors.

Shashikant N. Shetty Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

m/s villayati ram mittal Vs the slum rehabilitation auathority and Ors.

Milind G Chitnavis Vs Mr A.S. Dalvai (L.as) and Anr.

Aezaaz Akbar Agha and Anr. Vs the Commissioner, Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Mr. Sanjaykumar Ramchandra Yadav Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.