Disposed

Meenakshi Prabhakar Patil v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Dec 2014PIL/31/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL, the petitioner alleged that the District Collector sanctioned road works in Raigad without applying mind to statutory criteria, acting solely on directions from the Guardian Minister and MLAs. The court observed the illegality but held that works were already executed, rendering effective relief impossible.

What the court decided

AI extract

Meenakshi Prabhakar Patil Vs State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2014)

24.pilst 7626-11.doc

Chittewan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

PIL (ST.) NO.7626 OF 2011

¶6

Smt. Meenakshi Prabhakar Patil

¶7

).. Petitioner.

¶8

V/s

¶9

State of Maharashtra and ors. ). Respondents.

¶10

Mr C.G. Gavnekar, for Petitioner. Mr N.P. Deshpande, AGP for State/Respondents No.1 to 3.

¶11

CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.S.GADKARI, JJ DATED : 23^rd DECEMBER 2014

¶12

P.C.

¶13

Heard the submissions of the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties on the earlier date.

¶14

The petitioner on the date of filing of the petition was an elected Member of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly, elected from 192- Alibag Constituency. The petitioner has invited attention of the Court to the Government Resolution dated 10^th August, 2010. The Government Resolution records the decision of the State Government to implement development programmes for Konkan Area. The decision of the State Government was to provide dedicated funds for the construction and/or repairs of roads during the Financial Years, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. The amounts sanctioned for the districts within the Konkan Area were also set out in the Government Resolution. The amount sanctioned for the Raigad District for the work in relation to the roads was Rs.30 Crores. The Government Resolution provides that District Collector shall prepare a plan of undertaking various

24.pilst 7626-11.doc

Chittewan

categories of works during the said period of three years and he shall submit the same for the approval of the Planning Department. The criteria for selecting the roads is also laid down in the said Government Resolution.

¶19

The case of the petitioner in this petition is that the District Collector of Raigad by a communication addressed to the Raigad Zilla Parishad called upon said Zilla Parishad to suggest the works to be carried out for the period of three years in prescribed Tabular Form. The contention of the petitioner is that the Zilla Parishad in consultation with the Panchayat Samitis, forwarded the list of works to be carried out to the District Collector. The allegation in the petition is that the District Collector of Raigad without considering the works suggested by the Zilla Parishad straightway accepted the recommendations of the Hon'ble Guardian Minister of the District as well as Members of Legislative Assembly of the ruling parties and recommended the different works for approval of the Planning Department of the State. The contention is that the said works were not fulfilling the criteria laid down in the aforesaid Government Resolution. It is pointed out by amending the petition, that a sum of Rs.997.97 lacs was granted by the State Government for carrying out the works, as suggested by the Hon'ble Guardian Minister.

¶20

The submission of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that apart from the fact that Government Resolution dated 10^th August, 2010 lays down the criteria for selecting the works, the District Collector recommended the works which were suggested by the Hon'ble Guardian Minister as well as the Members of Legislative Assembly of the ruling party. He invited our attention to the provisions of Maharashtra District Planning Committee

24.pilst 7626-11.doc

Chittewan

(Constitution & Functions) Act, 1998 (For short the said Act). He submitted that the District Collector did not follow the provisions of the said Act. He, therefore, submitted that though the work has already been carried out, interference is called for.

¶25

We have heard the Learned AGP for the respondents, who has relied upon an affidavit of Mr Rajesh Netaji Titar, the District Planning Officer, District Raigad.

¶26

We have considered the submissions. We have perused the affidavit filed by Mr Rajesh Netaji Titar, District Planning Officer. To the said affidavit, a copy of the letter dated 30^th September, 2010 addressed by the District Collector-cum-Secretary of the District Planning Committee to the Executive Engineer, PWD and Executive Engineer, Raigad Zilla Parishad, has been annexed. A copy of the Government Resolution dated 10^th August, 2010 was forwarded alongwith the said letter. By the said letter, the Executive Engineers, were called upon to submit only those proposals which were satisfying the criteria laid down by the said Government Resolution. The said letter was followed by a reminder dated 15^th October, 2010, in which it was reiterated that proposals shall be for carrying out only those works which satisfy the criteria laid down in the said Government Resolution.

¶27

To the same affidavit, a letter dated 20^th October, 2010, issued by the District Collector & Member Secretary, the District Planning Committee of the State Government, has been annexed. The said letter specifically records that the Hon'ble Guardian Minister has issued directions to the Collector to submit the proposals approved by him to the State Government. By the communication dated 09^th November, 2010, the State Government informed the

¶28

4 24.pilst 7626-11.doc

¶29

Chittewan

¶30

District Planning Officer that for the year 2010-11, a sum of Rs.10 Crore has been sanctioned.

¶31

There is another affidavit dated 11^th December, 2012, filed by the same Officer. A copy of the order dated 05^th December, 2012 passed by the Hon'ble Minister of Rural Development, Finance and Planning Department of the State Government, on the representation made by the petitioner is placed on record. The said representation has been rejected by holding that the proposal did not require approval by the District Planning Committee.

¶32

The grievance of the petitioner is that there was no application of mind by the Collector to the question whether the works in respect of which the proposal was forwarded were fulfilling the criteria laid down in the said Government Resolution. Moreover, from the letter dated 20^th October, 3010 addressed by the Collector to the Principal Secretary & Development Commissioner, it is specifically stated that Hon'ble Guardian Minister instructed the Collector to forward the proposals received by him. The said letter clearly indicates that the works which were submitted by the Collector were the works suggested by the Hon'ble Guardian Minister. Thus, clearly an illegality has been committed by the Collector and subsequently by the State Government by sanctioning proposals. There is no application of mind whether the works incorporated in the said proposal satisfied the tests laid down in the Government Resolution.

¶33

We, however, note that now the works have been already carried out and therefore, no effective relief can be granted to the petitioner.

24.pilst 7626-11.doc

Chittewan

In the facts of the case, the Collector ought to have applied his mind before forwarding the proposals. It was for the Collector to decide whether the works satisfy the criteria laid down. The Collector has forwarded proposals only because the Hon'ble Guardian Minister directed him to act in a particular manner. Though we cannot grant any effective relief, we make it clear that for recommending works for the similar schemes introduced by the State Government, the Collector cannot be get influenced by the directions of the Guardian Minister or the Members of Legislative Assembly. The Collector shall act in accordance with the criteria provided in the schemes. We dispose of the Public Interest Litigations with the above observations.

¶38

We also direct that a copy of this judgment and order shall be forwarded to the District Collectors by the State of Maharashtra.

¶39

(A.S.GADKARI, J)

¶40

( A.S. OKA, J )

Meenakshi Prabhakar Patil v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Meenakshi Prabhakar Patil v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Adinath Mahadeo Dhangude and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Karjune Khare Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Limited, Ahmednagar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kuldeep Singh Gurudayal Singh Matharoo Vs the Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Vikas Sadashiv Lawande and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Dr. Ravindra T. Deoghare and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Dept.of Higher and Technical Education and or

Rauf Nyaju Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mr. Prakash Ganpat Sawant Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Prakash Ganpat Sawant Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Anuradha Co. Operative Housing Society, Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Suresh Vilaschandra Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mrs. Priya Yogesh Wagh Vs the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority through Its Secretary and Ors.

Kedarling-Bhairavnath Co-Op. Vividh Karyakari Society, through Shri. Bajjirao Ananda Redekar Vs Union of India, through Ministry of Finance and Ors.

Kedarling-Bhairavnath Co-Op. Vividh Karyakari Society, through Shri. Bajjirao Ananda Redekar Vs Union of India, through Ministry of Finance and Ors.

Maharashtra Maritime Board Vs Government of India and Ors.