Disposed

Pandurang Nivrutti Mone v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC26 Jul 2012PIL/43/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Collectors of Aurangabad and Jalna to inquire into allegations that ineligible persons benefited as Freedom Fighter nominees under a 1997 Government Resolution, without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Collector, Aurangabad and Jalna to initiate inquiry under Government Resolution dated 24th June 1997.

Pandurang Nivrutti Mone Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

Public Interest Litigation No.43 of 2011

¶4

Pandurang s/o Nivrutti Mone

¶5

.. Petitioner.

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents.

¶8

Shri. N.L. Jadhav, Advocate, for petitioner.

¶9

Smt. A.V. Gondhalekar, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 5.

¶10

Miss Priyanka U. Sawji, Advocate, holding for Shri. S.S. Thombre, Advocate, for respondent Nos.7,8,12,13,14,23, 24,28,29,41,46,48, and 83.

¶11

Shri. S.G. Sangale, Advocate, for respondent No.39.

¶12

Shri. Thorat, Advocate, holding for Shri. N.B. Khandare, Advocate, for respondent Nos.20,21,30,32,48,54 and 61.

¶13

Shri. P.C. Mayure, Advocate, for respondent No.25.

¶14

Shri. Vijay Y Patil, Advocate, for respondent No.26.

¶15

Shri. U.B. Bondar, Advocate, for respondent Nos.27,31,36,50, 64, 66,79,80,82.

¶16

Shri. Pramod A Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent Nos.33, 49.

¶17

Shri. Kiran D Jdhav, Advocate, for respondent No.35.

¶18

Shri. Rajendra S Deshmukh, Advocate, for respondent No.52.

¶19

Shri. Ajay Deshpande, Advocate, for respondent No.53.

¶20

Shri. M.P. Kale, Advocate, for respondent No.43,58.

¶21

Shri. Avishkar S. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent No.56.

¶22

Shri. Suresh N Rodge, Advocate, for respondent No.63.

¶23

2 PIL 43 of 2011

¶24

Shri. M.N. Deshmukh, Advocate, for respondent No.68.

¶25

Shri. P.P. Kothari, Advocate, holding for Shri. A.S. Bajaj, Advocate, for respondent Nos.69 and 70. Shri. B.S. Deshmukh, Advocate, for respondent No.71.

¶26

Shri. Hemant Surve, Advocate, for respondent No.73.

¶27

CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & U.D. SALVI, JJ. DATE : 26^th JULY 2012

¶28

PER COURT :

¶29

Heard.

¶30

The petitioner raises grievance that in Aurangabad and Jalna districts sizable number of persons have been benefited by getting service as nominee of Freedom Fighters. The petitioner placed reliance on Government Resolution dated 24^th June 1997 which provided mechanism to look into these issues.

¶31

Consequent to the notice issued, the Collector, Aurangabad and the Collector Jalna have filed affidavitsin-reply. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions, makes a statement that as early as possible the Collectors of the respective districts of Aurangabad and Jalna would take appropriate decision in this regard

¶32

3 PIL 43 of 2011

¶33

keeping in view the policy of the State. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that, a preliminary investigation points out that in some cases persons have utilized benefits being nominees of freedom fighters which they do not deserve. In the facts of the case, in case the allegations made by the petitioner are found to be true then the same would be a matter for consideration of the concerned authorities.

¶34

We, therefore, direct the Collector, Aurangabad and the Collector Jalna to initiate appropriate inquiry / investigation in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 24^th June 1997 and arrive at appropriate conclusion after hearing all the concerned, beneficiaries.

¶35

The petition is disposed of. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter. Authenticated copy of the order be provided to the requesting parties.

¶36

Sd/- Sd/- (U.D. SALVI, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.)

¶37

rsl

Pandurang Nivrutti Mone v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandurang Nivrutti Mone 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

Mira Bhayander Jagruti Sanstha and Anr. Vs Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Sahyog Trust Thr. Its Trusty R Bhusari Vs Municipal Commissioner, Nagpur Municipal Corpn. and Anr.

Prakash S/O Bhagwatrao Jadhav Vs State of Mah. Thr. Secty. and Ors.

Sai Chinnaswamy Mudaliar Vs State of Mah., Thr. Secy., Urban Develoopment Deptt. Mantralaya, Mumbai

Anand Narayanrao Jammu Vs State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty. and Ors.

Shri Jitendra S/O Bhaorao Kapse Vs the Secretary, Revenue Department and 9 Others

Sunil Baldeorao Kharate Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Chief Secretary and 8 Others

Shri. Rajkumar Parmeshwar Koli and Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation, Solapur and Ors.

Rani Laxmibai Shikshan Sanstha Nanded Thr Secretary Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ashok Sudhakar Palve Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Smt Kamalbai Radhakisan Gite Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Raur Nyaju Patel Vs the State of Lmaharashtra and Ors.

Saroj Wd/O Dinkar Dorle Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Raghunath Rangnath Thange Vs the State of Mah and Ors.