Disposed

Arvind Maruti Chavan v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Dec 2010PIL/8/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL challenged the inaction of authorities regarding alleged misappropriation of public funds for well excavation. The Court noted that action had already been initiated and ordered the completion of the procedure within six months, while keeping the matter open regarding allegations against another respondent.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to complete the initiated recovery and criminal procedure within six months; to look into allegations against Respondent No. 9.

Arvind Maruti Chavan Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2010)

srk

pil-8-10.sxw

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.8 OF 2010

¶6

Shri Arvind Maruti Chavan ... Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents

¶7

Mr. V.Y. Sanglikar i/by Mr. K.N. Kandekar for the petitioner. Mr. S.A. Sawant i/by Mr. H.E. Palwe and Mr. Sagar Kasar for respondent Nos. 7 to 9.

¶8

Mr. Uday Warunjikar with Mr. Rahul More for respondent Nos.4 and 5. Mr. V.D. Patil, Government Pleader for State-respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶9

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & S.J. KATHAWALLA , J.

¶10

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

¶11

P.C.

¶12

The grievance in this PIL is that there was inaction on the part of the respondents-authorities in not taking action against respondent Nos.7,8 and 9, who according to the petitioner, had misappropriated the public funds which were otherwise to be paid only upon excavation of wells under the Jawahar Rozgar Hami Yojana.

srk

pil-8-10.sxw

In the affidavit dated 7th September, 2010, the Deputy Collector (E.G.S.), Satara had stated that necessary enquiry was being conducted and that the Collector, Satara had initiated appropriate action and the matter was transferred to the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Satara for further implementation. It was also stated that Tahasildar, Koregaon gave his report dated 6th January, 2010 after a site visit and after recording the statements of concerned persons that there was no excavation of wells as per the sanctioned scheme and bogus report of construction of wells is shown thereby causing misappropriation of government grant. Copy of the report is also produced at Exhibit `E' to the reply affidavit.

¶17

The further affidavit dated 2nd December, 2010 of the Deputy Engineer also states that the Block Development Officer of Panchayat Samiti, Koregaon has filed First Information Report with the Koregaon Police Station authorities on 27.11.2010 disclosing the offences punishable under section 420 r/w.34 of I.P.C. and C.R. No.108 of 2010 has been registered at Koregaon Police Station in Satara District. A copy of the FIR is also produced with the affidavit at Exhibit `A'. The Deputy Engineer has further pointed out in the said affidavit that under section 179 of Maharashtra Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samiti Act, 1962, action has been initiated for recovery of the amount from respondent Nos.7 and 8 and that the amount to be recovered is Rs. 1,88,819/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12.5% as arrears of land revenue.

¶18

In view of the above, it is clear that the concerned authorities have initiated action and, therefore, this PIL is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to complete the procedure which is already initiated, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six months from today.

srk

pil-8-10.sxw

As far as the petitioner's allegations against respondent No.9 and other concerned persons are concerned, we leave it open to the authorities to look into the matter and take appropriate action.

¶23

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶24

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶25

S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.

Arvind Maruti Chavan v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Maruti Chavan v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Ajiz Ahmed Ghulam Rasul and 3 Ors. Vs Akola Municipal Corporation Thr. Its Commissioner, Akola and 4 Ors.

Jitendra Narayanrao Ghosekar Vs the State of Maha. Thr Secretary, Mumbai and Others

Dr. Harish S/O Narayan Warbhe and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty., and 4 Ors.

The Courts on Its Own Motion Vs the Supdt. of Police, Yavatmal and Anr.

Ajay S/O Kamalkishor Somani Vs Union of India Thr. Its Secty., and Anr.

Bharastachar Nirmoolan Sanghtana and 1 Ors. Vs Municiapal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai 2 Ors.

Suresh Kachruji Dhurdev and 14 Ors. Vs U.O.I. Thr. Its Min. of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation Thr. Secty., and 3 Ors.

Vijay S/O Kamalkishore Agrawal Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty., and 3 Ors.

Sayed Safar Ali and Ors. Vs Kusum C. More and Ors.

M/S. Mirasu Marketing Ltd. Vs Franch Herbs Technologics Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Velji Mawji Satwara Vs M.V. Chaturvedi and Ors. Yatin Trivedi and Anr.

Arvind Maruti Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Akhil Bhartiya Marathi Patrakar Parishad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Krishnai Valu Vahatukdar Sevabhavi Sanstha Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.