Dismissed

Shri. Manohar Balisha Naik and Ors. v. the Collector, Sangli and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Apr 2014PIL/102/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed PIL alleging misappropriation in Jalswarajya Scheme for Lingnur village. Found evidence showed scheme functional with savings. Directed petitioners to approach appropriate authorities for maintenance grievances.

What did the court decide?

The PIL was disposed of; liberty granted to petitioners to make appropriate representation to the Appropriate Authority.

Shri. Manohar Balisha Naik and Ors. Vs the… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2014)

pil-102.11

pmw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.102 OF 2011

¶6

Manohar Balisha Naik and another

¶7

… Petitioners

¶8

V/s.

¶9

The Collector and others … Respondents

¶10

Mr. Mahendra Agvekar i/by Mr. Mandar Limaye, for the Petitioners. Mr. V.S. Gokhale, AGP, for Respondent No.1. Mr. Ramesh D. Rane, for Respondent No.2. Mr. P.B. Deo, for Respondent Nos.4 to 7.

¶11

CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.A. SAYED, JJ.

¶12

DATE : 23^rd APRIL, 2014

¶13

P.C.

¶14

. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and

¶15

the learned counsel representing various Respondents. The grievance in the Petition filed by the Petitioners is as regards Jalswarajya Scheme for the residents of the Village Lingnur. Mainly the allegations of misappropriation of funds and grave illegalities and irregularities in implementation of the Scheme have been made by the Petitioners. There is an affidavit-in-reply filed by the Respondent Nos.4 to 6 in which in detail, the said Respondents have explained as to how the scheme has been implemented. It is pointed out that a net saving of a sum of Rs.3,71,397/- has been made while implementing the Scheme.

¶16

1 of 3

¶17

2 pil-102.11

¶18

It is pointed out that the Scheme is functional and now it is supplying water not only to the village Lingnur but also to the adjoining localities. It is pointed out that the photographs annexed to the Petition are relation to the totally unconnected Scheme of 'Shivkalin Pani Sathawan Yojana'. Various photographs have been annexed to the said affidavit which show that the Scheme is functional. Exhibit R1 is a statement of account which shows that the amount of Rs.3,71,397/- has been saved. The photographs of Two Elevated Storage Reservoirs constructed under the Jalaswarajya Scheme having capacity of 75,00,000 Liters have been annexed to the said reply. The photographs of Transformer and Pump House have been also annexed. We also find that the photographs of the Pump used as well as PVC Plastic Water Storage Reservoirs installed at various places have been annexed.

¶19

Now, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners makes a grievance regarding the manner in which the Wells are being maintained.

¶20

After having perused the affidavit of Respondent Nos.4 to 6 and annexures thereof, we are satisfied that there is no merit in the grievances made in the PIL. Now the grievance which is sought to be made today is as regards the maintenance aspect of the Scheme. If the

¶21

2 of 3

¶22

3 pil-102.11

¶23

Petitioners have really any serious grievance of the maintenance of the Wells and other facilities, it is for them to make appropriate representation to the concerned authorities.

¶24

Suffice it to say that in view of the affidavits filed by the Respondents, no case is made out to entertain the PIL. We, accordingly, dispose of the PIL by granting liberty to the Petitioners to make appropriate representation in that behalf to the Appropriate Authority.

¶25

(A.A. SAYED, J ) (A.S.OKA, J )

¶26

3 of 3

Shri. Manohar Balisha Naik and Ors. v. the Collector, Sangli and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Manohar Balisha Naik and Ors. v. the Collector, Sangli 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

Nabab Sandu Shaikh and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Siddhivinayak Marg Nivasi Seva Sanstha Vs Mira-Bhayander Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Shri. Suryakant Manikrao Deshmukh and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Meera Sadanand Kamath Vs the States of Maharashtra

Shaikh Rabnoddin Shaikh Gulab Khatik and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Musa Kamalshah Murshad and Anr. Vs Narsayya Narayan Adam (Master) and Ors.

Musa Kamalshah Murshad and Anr. Vs Narsayya Narayan Adam (Master) and Ors.

Shri. Prem Arun Joseph and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Avinash Shankar Ghode Vs the Managing Director - Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Ors.

Avinash Shankar Ghode Vs the Managing Director - Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Ors.

Rangnath Waman Salve Vs Municipal Corporation of the City Pimpri Chinchwad and Ors.

Madan Bandopant Chodankar Vs the Divisional Cast Scrutiny Committee No. 2 and Ors.

Shri. Shantaram Yamaji Pujari Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Water Resources Dept and Ors.

Shri. Manohar Balisha Naik and Ors. Vs the Collector, Sangli and Ors.