Allowed

Bhrashtrachar Virodhi Jan Andolan Nyas Thr. Its President Gm Gawande v. State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty. and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Aug 2012PIL/64/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL petitioned the High Court to order an enquiry into misappropriation of funds in the Swajaldhara Scheme and direct action against respondents for delays. Upon affidavits showing pending actions by authorities and an undertaking to complete the scheme by December 2012, the Court made the rule absolute with no further orders.

What did the court decide?

Rule made absolute directing appropriate action on existing findings, initiation of enquiry, undertaking to complete scheme by 31-12-2012, and recovery of funds, with no order as to costs.

Bhrashtrachar Virodhi Jan Andolan Nyas Thr… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

pil64.11.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.64 OF 2011

¶5

Bhrashtrachar Virodhi Jan Andolan Nyas (Maharashtra), Reg. No.Mah/4662/ Ahmednagar having its branch at Kandali, Tahsil-Acharpur, District Amravati, through its President Shri Gendu Mukindaji Gawande, aged about 70 years, Occupation – Retired Pensioner, R/o Near Shriram Gas Godown, Kandali, Tahsil Achalpur, District Amravati, Mob. No.9403311761, PAN No.ACCPG9975E, National Unique Identity Enrollment No. 1218/17397/45256.

¶6

PETITIONER

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Water Supply & Sanitation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶9

1. Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati.

¶10

1. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Amravati, District Amravati.

¶11

1. Executive Engineer, Village Water Supply Department, Zilla Parishad, Amravati.

¶12

1. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Achalpur, Tahsil-Achalpur, District Amravati.

¶13

pil64.11.odt

¶14

¶15

1. Gram Panchayat, Kandali, through its Secretary, Village Kandali, Tahsil-Achalpur, District-Amravati.

¶16

1. Village Water Supply & Sanitation Committee, Gram Panchayat, Kandali, Village Kandali, Tahsil-Achalpur, District Amravati.

¶17

1. Village Social Audit Committee, Gram Panchayat Kandali, Village Kandali, Tahsil-Achalpur, District-Amravati.

¶18

1. R.R. Shekhawat, Aged – Major, Occupation-Contractor, R/o Sainagar, Ward No.4, Village Kandali, Tahsil-Achalpur, District Amravati.

¶19

Pravin Balkrishna Manwar, aged 45 years, Occupation – Technical Advisor, Z.P. Amravati, R/o Santoshi Colony, Quarter No.14, Rahatgaon Chowki, District Amravati. …. RESPONDENTS

¶20

Mr. R.D. Wakode, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. R.S. Nayak, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 & 2, Mr. J.B. Kasat, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 & 4, Mr. P.S. Patil, Advocate for respondent No.5, Ms Meghana Munshi, Advocate for respondent No.9

¶21

CORAM : P.V. HARDAS & M.L. TAHALIYANI, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 24th, 2012.

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER P.V. HARDAS, J.)

¶23

pil64.11.odt

¶24

¶25

Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.

¶26

This is a Public Interest Litigation filed by the petitioner praying for issuance of a writ directing the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Amravati to conduct a detailed enquiry on the basis of preliminary findings arrived at by respondent No.4 in its enquiry report dated 19-3-2010 and to take appropriate action, administrative and criminal, against the respondent Nos.7, 8, 9 and 10 for misappropriation of Government Funds and dereliction from their duties. The petitioner further prays for issuance of a writ directing respondent No.3 to initiate a departmental enquiry against respondent No.5 for implementing orders of his superior authorities and also prays for issuance of a writ directing respondent No.9 to complete the entire Swajaldhara Scheme as sanctioned for respondent No.6 Grampanchayat Kandali at its earliest as per the standards prescribed in the sanction order and handover the same to Grampanchayat, Kandali. The petitioner further prays for issuance of a writ directing respondent No.4 to recover an amount of Rs.6,47,000/- along with interest from respondent No.9 which had been, according to the petitioner, illegally paid by respondent No.7 Water Supply Committee.

¶27

The respondent Nos.3 and 4 have filed their affidavit-in-reply

¶28

pil64.11.odt

¶29

¶30

and in the said affidavit-in-reply, it is stated that upon the complaints, which were received, a preliminary enquiry was conducted and thereafter a fullfledged enquiry was directed to be conducted by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Amravati by constituting two enquiry committees in respect of financial and technical defaults. It is further stated that on the basis of the technical and financial enquiry report of the Enquiry Committee certain irregularities were noticed and the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Amravati had issued show cause notices to the President and Secretary as also Technical Service Provider of the Water Supply and Sanction Committee, Kandali, Tahsil-Achalpur on 29-5-2012. It is further stated at para 12 of the affidavit-in-reply that in view of subsequent developments i.e. holding of a detailed enquiry by the Technical and Financial Committee, further action is being initiated on the basis of the same. A copy of the Fax message has been placed before us by Mr. J.B. Kasat, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4. We reproduce the contents of the fax message as under :-

¶31

“In view of the above referred enquiry report, appropriate action in accordance with law against the erring officers/employees as well as office bearers of the Grampanchayat/Committee, Technical Service Provider, etc. and all those directly or indirectly responsible for executing the said work and providing safe and adequate water to the inhabitants of village Kandali, Tahsil Achalpur as per the scheme, will be taken within a period of two months by the

¶32

pil64.11.odt

¶33

¶34

Zilla Parishad, Amravati.

¶35

This is for favor of information and necessary order if

¶36

any.”

¶37

Ms. Meghana Munish, learned Counsel for respondent No.9, states on instructions from respondent No.9 that in view of the agreement executed by respondent No.9 with respondent No.7, respondent No.9 has undertaken to complete the water supply scheme by 31^st December 2012 i.e. remove all the deficiencies or cure all irregularities in the implementation of the scheme. We accept the aforesaid statement as an undertaking to the Court.

¶38

In the light of the statement made on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4 and statement made by learned Counsel for respondent No.9, according to us, nothing further survives for in this petition and accordingly we make the rule absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs.

¶39

JUDGE JUDGE.

¶40

pma

Bhrashtrachar Virodhi Jan Andolan Nyas Thr. Its President Gm Gawande v. State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhrashtrachar Virodhi Jan Andolan Nyas Thr. Its President Gm Gawande v. State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty. 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

Kishwar Vajid Mirza Vs the Central Board of Movie Certificaiton and Anr.

Madan Damale Vs the Superintendent of Police Raigad and Ors.

Mr. Manohar S. Redij Vs the State of Maharashtra, Junior Engineer, Ratnagiri Zilla Parishad, Sub Divisional and Ors.

Mr. Manohar S. Redij Vs the State of Maharashtra, Junior Engineer, Ratnagiri Zilla Parishad, Sub Divisional and Ors.

Rashtriya Apang Vikas Mahasangh Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Catholic Resident Organization for Social Service Vs the Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai and Ors.

Bhimaji S/O Patru Hanwate Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty., and 2 Ors.

Sanjay Tukaram Autade and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Purushottam Ramchandra Deshbhartar Vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Kamptee

Uttam Narayan Ilame, C/159 Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secy Home Deptt., Mantralaya, Mumbai and Another

Mohd Riyaj Mohd Hussain, C/1950 Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secy Home Deptt Mantralya, Mumbai and Another

Vijay Ramraoji Manekar Vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Nagpur and Another

Vijay Kisan Nachan Vs State of Maharashtra through Pso Jalgaon Jamod Distt Buldhana

Sheikh Akram S/O Sheikh Shabbir and Another Vs State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Nandanwan Nagpur