Disposed

Babanrao Vithalrao Shinde and Anr. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Oct 2013WP/5500/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court directed respondent no.2 to initiate steps for recovery of surplus funds and proper investigation into misappropriation. Liberty granted to renew grievance if action was not taken within three months. Petition disposed with liberty to the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no.2 to take steps to safeguard and recover misappropriated or surplus funds within three months; liberty granted to petitioners to renew grievance if action not taken.

Babanrao Vithalrao Shinde and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors. — Corruption | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

(1)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

Writ Petition No. 5500 of 2010

¶4

Babanrao s/o. Vithalrao Shinde, Age : 61 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Neknoor, Taluka & District : Beed.

¶5

Namdeo s/o. Sitaram Kale, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Neknoor, Taluka & District : Beed. .. Petitioners.

¶6

versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶8

The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed, District : Beed.

¶9

The Rural Water Supply & Sanitation Committee, Neknoor, Taluka & District : Beed, Through its President, Amit s/o. Purushottam Deshmukh, Age : 30 years, Occupation : Agriculture & Business, R/o. Neknoor, Taluka & District : Beed.

¶10

(2)

¶11

Narayan s/o. Balbhim Shinde, Age : 44 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Neknoor, Taluka & District : Beed.

¶12

Sau. Bikat Begum Mohmmad Areftulla, Age : 32 years, Occupation : Business and Secretary, Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Committee, R/o. Neknoor, Taluka and District : Beed.

¶13

Salim Pasha Khaja Pasha, Age : 35 years, Occupation : Business and Sarpanch, Grampanchayat, Neknoor, Taluka & District : Beed.

¶14

The Village Grampanchayat, Neknoor, Taluka & District : Beed, Through its Gramsevak.

¶15

The Beed District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Branch at Balbhim Chowk, Beed, District : Beed, Through its Branch Manager. .. Respondents.

¶16

Mr. N.T. Tribhuwan, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶17

Mr. G.K. Naik Thigle, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.1.

¶18

Mr. U.B. Bondar, Advocate, for respondent no.2.

¶19

Mr. S.S. Thombre, Advocate, for respondent nos.3 to 7.

¶20

(3)

¶21

Respondent no.8 served (Absent).

¶22

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ.

¶23

DATE : 18TH OCTOBER 2013

¶24

COURT'S ORDER (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) :

¶25

Heard Adv. Mr. N.T. Tribhuwan for the petitioners; learned AGP Mr. G.K. Naik Thigle for respondent no.1; Adv. Mr. U.B. Bondar for respondent no.2; and Adv. Mr. S.S. Thombre for respondent nos.3 to 7. Nobody for respondent no.8 though served.

¶26

Prayer in the petition is to inquire into misappropriation committed by respondent nos.3 to 6, to decide applications dated 20-8-2010 and 25-3-2010, submitted by the petitioners and till then, not to disburse the amount of third instalment in favour of respondent no.3 / Committee.

¶27

Adv. Mr. Tribhuvan states that though a criminal offence has been registered, in FIR, respondent no.4 has not been mentioned as accused. He further states that inquiry has been conducted by respondent no.2 - Chief Executive Officer and some amount is found recoverable but no steps to recover that amount have still been taken. He contends that, therefore, these grievances in the present petition still need consideration.

¶28

(4)

¶29

Adv. Mr. Bondar submits that criminal prosecution is already lodged against the persons who are members of the Committee. He is seeking time to find out steps initiated by respondent no.2 against members for excess amount either lying with them or utilized by them.

¶30

Adv. Mr. Thombre for respondent nos.3 to 7 submits that the advances were released to Committee and the same have been thereafter made over to contractors for the work done. He further states that if any amount is still lying to the credit of the Committee, it is for work to be completed by the contractor. He contends that in this situation, there is no question of any recovery. According to him, as all prayers in the petition are already granted, the matter has become infructuous.

¶31

If respondent no.4 is not shown as accused, it is open to the petitioners to move appropriate application before competent court to point out involvement of respondent no.4 in the offence. It is open to said court to look into such application and at any stage, it can also add respondent no.4 as accused, if it finds that the material on record necessitates his addition.

¶32

In so far as recovery is concerned, criminal action is already instituted for misappropriation. In addition, if records show any misappropriation or then surplus funds available with the Committee, it is open to respondent no.2 to take appropriate steps to safeguard the amount not disbursed till date. Similarly, respondent nos.3 to 7 can be given appropriate notices and after hearing them, the recovery in accordance with law can also be undertaken. We, therefore, direct respondent no.2 to

¶33

(5)

¶34

proceed in the matter accordingly.

¶35

If petitioners find that no action as per directions of this Court is being taken within a period of three months from today, we grant them liberty to renew their grievance. With this liberty and keeping all rival contentions in relation to this aspect open, we dispose of the petition. No costs.

¶36

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE ) ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶37

bgp/wp5500

Babanrao Vithalrao Shinde and Anr. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babanrao Vithalrao Shinde and Anr. v. the State of Mah 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

Khaja Ahemad Mustafa Azhar Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Shobhabai Mansaram Pawar and Others Vs the Municipal Council, Amalner and Others

New Shyam Dharti Kendra and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dadasaheb Fakira Nikam and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Shaikh Junaid Shaikh Zakir Vs Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner and Others

Sapli Dharan Sangharsha Samitik Kalmnuri through Vice President Vs the Union of India and Ors.