Dismissed

Balasaheb Shankarrao Patole v. State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC12 Nov 2008PIL/73/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner sought directions to control or remove alleged incompetent and corrupt officers of the Pune Municipal Corporation. The court found the allegations vague and based on hearsay, lacking bonafides and public interest.

What did the court decide?

The petition is dismissed and the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as costs.

Balasaheb Shankarrao Patole Vs State of Maharashtra… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

-1-

¶2

mgj

¶3

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 P.I.L.No. 73 of 2006

¶5

 Mr.Balasaheb Shankarrao Patole ..Petitioner

¶6

vs.

¶7

 1. State of Maharashtra & ors ..Respondents

¶8

 Shri C.S.Patil i/b Shri Anurag Jain for petitioner.
 Shri V.P.Malvankar, A.G.P. for respondent no.1.
 Shri R.G.Ketkar for respondent nos. 2 and 3.

¶9

CORAM:J.N.PATEL &
S.J.KATHAWALLAJJ.
 12th November, 2008

¶10

P.C.

¶11

 1. The petitioner, who claims to be a social

¶12

 worker, has filed this petition as public interest
 litigation seeking a direction to the respondents,
 namely, State of Maharashtra through its Principal
 Secretary, Pune Municipal Corporation, Commissioner
 of Pune Municipal Corporation to take necessary

¶13

 steps to control and/or remove the alleged
 incompetent, inefficient and corrupt officers who
 are on the roll of respondent no.2 Corporation.
 Further directions are sought against the
 respondents directing them to submit six monthly
 evaluation report on the steps taken for
 controlling and/or removing such incompetent,

¶14

-2-

¶15

 inefficient and corrupt officers who are on the
 roll of Pune Municipal Corporation.

¶16

 2. In response to the petition, Joint Municipal
 Commissioner of respondent no.2 has filed his
 detailed affidavit wherein he has pointed out that
 the Public Interest litigation is filed in service
 matters and having regard to the settled position
 of law, the public interest litigation in service
 matters cannot be entertained. He has further
 pointed out that the petitioner has made reckless
 and baseless allegations in the petition based upon
 newspaper reports and hearsay material. No
 concrete instances of alleged corruption are given.
 The said affidavit also sets out the immediate
 steps taken from time to time against officials who
 have misconducted themselves. We are satisfied
 with the material placed before us by respondent
 no.2 pertaining to the steps taken as regards such
 officials.

¶17

 3. We find that the petitioner has made vague and
 general allegations based on newspaper reports and
 has tried to give an impression that all is not
 well in the Municipal Corporation, Pune. No

¶18

-3-

¶19

 rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner nor any

¶20

 cogent material is even brought at this stage

¶21

 before the Court in support of the allegations made

¶22

 in the petition. We are of the view that the
 petition lacks bonafides and is not in public

¶23

 interest. We, therefore, dismiss the petition and
 direct the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-

¶24

 towards costs within a period of four weeks from

¶25

 today. If the petitioner fails to pay the costs,
 Collector, Pune is directed to recover the same as

¶26

 a fine by resorting to the provisions of
 Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and upon recovering

¶27

 the costs the same be credited to the account of

¶28

 the District Legal Services Authority, Pune.

¶29

(S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (J.N.PATEL J.)

Balasaheb Shankarrao Patole v. State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balasaheb Shankarrao Patole v. State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Ratan Y Chavan and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Syed Asgharally Sattarally Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Javed Ahmed Budhan Shaikh and Anr. Vs the Commissioner, Thane Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Vaibhav Ashok Khaire and Ors. Vs the Collector of Nashik and Ors.

Dr.R.a.Singh Vs Ambarnath Municipal Council and Ors.

Mr. a. Dasgupta Vs the Comm. Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika, Bombay and Oth.

Shri. B. B. Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dr.Sanjay S.Mhatre,M.D.S.(Bom.)F.I.C.D., Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pawan Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ramesh Pundalik Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Siddharam Irannappa Tugaonkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Karmaveer Kakasaheb Wagh Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Kayam Hangami Kamgaranchi Sahakari Patsanstha Mar Vs Karmaveer Kakasaheb Wagh Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Ors.

Karmaveer Kakasaheb Wagh Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Kayam Kamgaranchi Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit an Vs Karmaveer Kakasaheb Wagh Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Ors.

Kamlakar Chintaman Galande and Anr. Vs Darshan Deosthan Warje and Ors.