Disposed

The State of Maharashtra, Dept. of Agriculture, through Secretary, and 3 Others v. Rajendra S/O Ratanlal Tapar

Bombay HC8 Oct 2014PIL/59/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposes of PIL No.59 of 2014, where the State of Maharashtra agreed to implement its new State Litigation Policy within eight months to prevent unwarranted litigation, an order accepted by the Court and made binding on the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Implementation of State Litigation Policy within eight months made binding on petitioners.

The State of Maharashtra, Dept. of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1/3

¶2

pil59.14

¶3

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

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.59 OF 2014 The State of Maharashtra, Department of Agriculture, Mantralaya, Mumbai, thr its Secretary and ors

¶5

-vs-

¶6

Rajendra s/o Ratanlal Tapar

¶7

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

¶8

Court's or Judge's Orders.

¶9

Mrs. Bharati Dangre, Government Pleader for the petitioners.

¶10

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & P. R. BORA, JJ.

¶11

DATE : 08.10.2014.

¶12

Heard.

¶13

Initially, the State of Maharashtra had filed the instant petition challenging the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, so far as it directed the petitioners– State of Maharashtra to pay the interest on the delayed payment of the medical reimbursement bill. This Court, while hearing the writ petition on 4.8.2014, expressed that the facts of the case did not warrant filing of the petition and the writ petition was filed only because the Officers of the State Government did not have to pay anything from their own pockets. With a view to deal with the vexed problem of unwarranted litigation, this Court directed the Registry to treat the present petition as a Public Interest Litigation. The same is registered as a Public Interest Litigation since then. In the order dated 4.8.2014, this Court has narrated the various instances where unwarranted litigation is filed at the behest of the State Government. By the said order dated

¶14

2/3

¶15

pil59.14

¶16

4.8.2014 this Court, therefore, requested the State Government to formulate the Model Litigation Policy so that unwarranted litigation could be prevented.

¶17

In furtherance of the order dated 4.8.2014, it was informed to this Court by the learned Government Pleader on one of the previous dates of hearing that the State Litigation Policy has been framed and it is most likely that the object for framing the Model Litigation Policy would be achieved if the procedure and the measures mentioned in the policy are followed before the filing of the cases. On the previous dates of hearing, we had asked the learned Government Pleader, within what time the State Litigation Policy would be implemented.

¶18

Today, a statement is made by the learned Government Pleader that the State Litigation Policy, as framed by the Government and annexed to the affidavit dated 17.9.2014, would be implemented within a period of eight months as the Committees are required to be constituted at the State level, department level and the District. It is stated that the State Government would be required to appoint the Nodal Officers to perform the duties as stated in the State Litigation Policy. It is submitted that the exercise of formation of the Committees and the Nodal Officers would take some time and a period of eight months would be required for the implementation of the State Litigation Policy.

¶19

We appreciate the endeavour on the part of the

¶20

3/3

¶21

pil59.14

¶22

State Government to frame the State Litigation Policy in furtherance of our order dated 4.8.2014 and we dispose of the Public Interest Litigation by accepting the statement made on behalf of the petitioners - State of Maharashtra – Department of Law and Judiciary, which would be binding on the petitioners. We expect that the policy would be implemented at the earliest so as to curb the unwarranted litigation.

¶23

With the aforesaid observations, the Public Interest Litigation is disposed of with no order as to costs.

¶24

It is needless to mention that the challenge made by the State Government to the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has failed and the petition in regard to the challenge stands dismissed.

¶25

JUDGE

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

BRW

The State of Maharashtra, Dept. of Agriculture, through Secretary, and 3 Others v. Rajendra S/O Ratanlal Tapar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra, Dept. of Agriculture, through Secretary, and 3 Others v. Rajendra S/O Ratanlal Tapar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Kishor Suryakant Mahadar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Vaibhavshali Mahila Bahuudeshiy Samajik Sanstha, Solapur, through Secretary, Mrs. a. S. Sonavane Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Women and Child Development Dept and Ors.

Shri. Kishor Suryakant Mahadar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Vaibhavshali Mahila Bahuudeshiy Samajik Sanstha, Solapur, through Secretary, Mrs. a. S. Sonavane Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Women and Child Development Dept and Ors.

Dilip Ramchandra Shinde Vs State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Mr. Kiran Anandrao Pawar and Anr. Vs Chief General Manager M/S. Irb Kolhapur Integrated Rd. Development Com. Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Ketan K. Tirodkar Vs Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Ors.

Mr. Kiran Anandrao Pawar and Anr. Vs Chief General Manager M/S. Irb Kolhapur Integrated Rd. Development Com. Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Ashok S/O Anandrao Dhapodkar Vs the Commissioner for Fisheries and Registrar of Cooperative Socieite, Pune and 3 Others

Dr. Surya Nath Prasad, S/O Govardhan Ram Vs Nagpur University, through Its Ragistrar Nagpur and Others

Shri Pundlik Laxman Pendam and 2 Others Vs Additional Tribal Commissioner, Tribal Development Department, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and 3 Others

Ravindra S/O Sitaramji Gadge Vs the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur and 4 Others

Tarachand S/O Bisan Sakure, through P.O.A. Shri Pramod S/O Prabhakar Bhandarkar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Housing and Special Assistance Department, Mumbai

Ksl and Industries Limited, Thr. Its President Sorabh Tayal Vs Union of India Thru. Its Secty. and Others