Disposed

Wasudeo S/O Yadavrao Khobragade v. State of Mah. Thr. Water Supply and Sanitation Dept. and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Feb 2013PIL/45/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an PIL regarding the Jal Swarajaya Prakalp/ Swajaldhara Project, the court noted an enquiry report revealing irregularities. The court directed authorities to take appropriate action in accordance with circulars and guidelines within twelve weeks after givingnotice of hearing. The PIL was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to concerned authorities to take appropriate action under circulars and guidelines within twelve weeks after hearing all concerned persons.

Wasudeo S/O Yadavrao Khobragade Vs State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Public Interest Litigation No.45 of 2012 [Wasudeo Yadavrao Khobragade Vs. State of Mah. & others]

¶3

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶4

Mr. Muzammil Hussain, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. Sambre, Govt. Pleader for respondent no.1.
Mr. N. Gaikwad, Adv., holding for Mr. A.A. Naik,
Adv., for respondent nos. 3 and 4.
Mr. P.M. Shukla, Adv., for respondent no.6.
Mr. S.M. Mehadia, Adv., for respondent nos. 9, 10 and
11.

¶5

CORAM: A.P. LAVANDE AND

¶6

A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ.

¶7

DATE : 20th February, 2013.

¶8

1. Heard.

¶9

2.By this petition, the petitioner has
sought following reliefs:-

¶10

�i.Direct the respondents to
implement the circulars dated
2.5.2005and18.3.2008
[Annexures A & B] issued by
respondent no.1.

¶11

ii.Direct the respondents to
implementtheguidelines
[Annexure-C] issued by the

¶12

¶13

respondent no.2;

¶14

iii.Appoint a commission under the
Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952
to investigate the illegalities
committed in the implementation
of �Jal Swarajaya Prakalp� of
�Swajaldhara� Project and bring
the culprits to the books of
justice.

¶15

iv.Grant any other relief which
this Hon�ble Court deems
sufficient, fit and proper in
the facts and circumstances of
the case.�

¶16

3.Affidavit-in-Reply has been filed on
behalf of respondent no.9 and thereafter
Enquiry Report dated 24th January, 2013 has been
filed,whichdisclosesthatseveral
irregularities have been noticed in the course
of enquiry which have been mentioned in the
said report. Learned Adv. Mr. Mehadia for
respondent nos. 9 to 11 states that the
respondent no.9 is following the Circulars
dated 2nd May, 2005 and 18th March, 2008 and also
the guidelines issued by the respondent no.2.
The statement is accepted.

¶17

4.In view of the report dated 24th January,
2013, we direct the concerned Authorities to
take appropriate action in accordance with the
Circulars and the guidelines after giving an
opportunity of being heard to all the concerned

¶18

¶19

persons. The same shall be done within a
period of twelve weeks.

¶20

5. With the above observations, this Public Interest Litigation stands disposed of.

¶21

JudgeJudge

¶22

|Hedau|

Wasudeo S/O Yadavrao Khobragade v. State of Mah. Thr. Water Supply and Sanitation Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Wasudeo S/O Yadavrao Khobragade v. State of Mah. Thr. Water Supply and Sanitation Dept. 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

Maharashtra Federation of Teachers Organisation Vs the State of Maharashtra -the Department of Education and Ors.

Ajanta Taluka Formation Committee Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Maharashtra Federation of Teachers Organisation Vs the State of Maharashtra -the Department of Education and Ors.

Shaikh Abdul Rahim Isak Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vikas Raghunath Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Anil Bansilal Mundada Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Bhila Mahdu Sonawane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Amit Arvind Atigre and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vijay Ramesh Warulkar and One Another Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps Tamgaon

Sk. Rafique S/O Sk. Hussain ( in Jail) Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur and Anr.

Pramod S/O Girmaji Dhande Vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Pulgaon and Another

M/S Bajaj Alluminium Industries, through Its Partner, Smt. Jaya Purshottam Bajaj Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Department of Commerce and Industrial Affairs and 3 Ot

Shri Gorakshan Sanstha through Its Secretary Shri R H Nawander, Amravati and Others Vs Amravati Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner and Others

Sheela Madhukar Gudadhe and Anor. Vs State of Mah. Thru. Secty. and 10 Ors.