Disposed

Bharati Shikshan Sanstha Pimprala through President and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Oct 2013WP/7537/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, directed the Municipal Commissioner to supply data sought for departmental inquiries within four weeks. The court held the matter if compliance was not made by 31st December 2013 and disposed of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Municipal Commissioner to supply data within four weeks to enable departmental inquiries by 31st December 2013.

Bharati Shikshan Sanstha Pimprala through… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

(1)

¶2

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

¶3

Writ Petition No. 7537 of 2010

¶4

Bharati Shikshan Sanstha, Pimprala, Taluka & District : Jalgaon, Through its President, Ashok Kedarnath Mundade, Age : 55 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Mundadanagar, District : Jalgaon.

¶5

Sau. Mangala Ashok Mundade, Age : 56 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Mundadanagar, District : Jalgaon. .. Petitioners.

¶6

versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶8

The Director of Town Planning, Pune.

¶9

The Deputy Director of Town Planning, Nashik.

¶10

The Assistant Director, Town Planner (Government), Jalgaon, New B.J. Market, Jalgaon.

¶11

The Collector, Jalgaon, District : Jalgaon.

¶12

The Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon, Through its Commissioner.

¶13

The Assistant Director, Town Planning Department, Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon. .. Respondents.

¶14

Mr. S.A. Ambilwade, Advocate, instructed by Mr. Vijay B. Patil, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶15

Mr. P.P. More, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 5.

¶16

Mr. P.R. Patil, Advocate, for respondent nos.6 and 7.

¶17

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

¶18

DATE : 23RD OCTOBER 2013

¶19

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

¶20

Heard Adv. Mr. S.A. Ambilwade, instructed by Adv. Mr. V.B. Patil for the petitioners; learned AGP Mr. P.P. More for respondent nos.1 to 5; and Adv. Mr. P.R. Patil for respondent nos.6 and 7, finally.

¶21

Perused affidavits in reply filed on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 4, as also respondent nos.6 and 7.

¶22

We do not find it necessary to go into merits of the

¶23

(3)

¶24

controversy. We only place on record, that the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Maharashtra, has on 3rd March 2009, found errors and irregularities. He, therefore, directed initiation of departmental inquiries. Those departmental inquiries have not been initiated till date.

¶25

Learned AGP Mr. More has pointed out communication sent by the Director of Town Planning, Maharashtra State, Pune, to the Deputy Director of Town Planning, Nashik Division, Nashik, on 1-4-2009; communication by Deputy Director of Town Planning, Nashik, to the Assistant Director of Town Planning, Jalgaon, on 17-4-2009; and communications to Municipal Commissioner of respondent no.6 / Municipal Corporation, by the Assistant Director of Town Planning, Jalgaon, dated 12-8-2009, 7-11-2009, 7-12-2009 and 26-3-2010. In all these communications, documents have been sought from Municipal Corporation to enable drafting of charge sheet and holding of departmental inquiries. Respondent no.6 has not forwarded any papers and till date, no inquiry, therefore, could commence.

¶26

The facts also show that the petitioner runs a school and open ground lying in vicinity of school was allowed to be used / allotted to the petitioner as it is playground. We again fail to understand, how such open space or ground, even if belongs to Municipal Corporation, could have been given to the petitioner. The facts here show that, that allotment was cancelled and the land was taken back after Municipal Corporation realized that said open space does not belong to it.

¶27

(4)

¶28

Respondent nos.1 and 2 have only remained satisfied by issuing demands and communications. Respondent no.6 has not responded to it.

¶29

We, therefore, direct present incumbent holding post of Municipal Commissioner of respondent no.6, to forthwith communicate the data as sought for by the office of respondent no.2. Said data will be supplied within a period of four weeks from today. Respondent no.2 shall thereafter initiate necessary departmental inquiries in accordance with law. The communication of initiation of departmental inquiries shall be served upon petitioners and its copy shall also be filed by the office of Government Pleader with the Registry of this Court, in the present petition, by 31st December 2013. If this compliance is not done, Court may proceed further in appropriate jurisdiction against persons found guilty of not obeying the court directions.

¶30

With the above directions, and with liberty to the petitioners to renew the grievance again, if it still survives after 31st December 2013, we dispose of the petition. No costs.

¶31

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

¶32

bgp/wp7537

Bharati Shikshan Sanstha Pimprala through President and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharati Shikshan Sanstha Pimprala through President and Anr. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jain Social Federations Anandrishiji Hospital and Medical Research Center Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Amita Devidasrao Chate Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Umesh Devidas Khaladkar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sayyed Ajij Abbas Vs the Divisional Controller Msrtc Ahmedngar and Ors.

Shivani Estate Brokers and Developers Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rajendra Madanlal Pipada Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.