Dismissed

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

Bombay HC23 Apr 2014PIL/63/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL regarding alleged misconduct by government employees, the Court observed that initiation of criminal proceedings by issuing charge sheets dispensed with the immediate need for the PIL. The Court disposed of the writ petition and an associated civil application, striking through an earlier ad-interim order.

What did the court decide?

Disposed the PIL and Civil Application No.192 of 2013; ad-interim order dated 19th March, 2013 struck through.

Shri. Shantaram Yamaji Pujari Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2014)

pil-63.13

pmw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.63 OF 2013

¶6

Shri. Shantaram Yamaji Pujari

¶7

… Petitioner

¶8

V/s.

¶9

The State of Maharashtra and others … Respondents

¶10

Mr. Vivek Salunke, for the Petitioner.

¶11

Mr. S.K. Shinde, Government Pleader a/w Mr. P.G. Sawant, AGP, 'A' Panel, for Respondent Nos.1, 4 and 5.

¶12

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

¶13

DATE : 23^rd APRIL, 2014

¶14

P.C.

¶15

. We have perused the affidavit of Shri Atul Ashok Kode, Deputy Secretary to the Government, Water Resources Department which is affirmed on 22nd April, 2014. It records that the preliminary enquiry report was submitted by the Superintending Engineer, Vigilance Unit, Pune. It also records that charge sheets have been issued to 13 Government Officers including some Executive Engineers. The charges in brief have been set out in the affidavit.

¶16

Though belatedly, the State Government appears to have

¶17

taken action by issuing charge sheets against the 13 employees.

1 of 2

pil-63.13

If during the course of enquiry it is revealed that any offence has been committed by the erring employees, the State Government will have to set the criminal law in motion. Therefore, in view of the action taken which is revealed from the affidavit of Shri Atul Ashok Kode, as of today, it is not necessary to entertain this PIL as even the particulars of the charges against 13 Officers have been disclosed.

¶22

However, the State will have to take the disciplinary proceedings to its logical conclusion as expeditiously as possible. As stated earlier, if necessary, the State will have to set the criminal law in motion. Subject to what is directed as above, this PIL is disposed of. In view of the disposal of the PIL, adinterim order dated 19 th March, 2013 does not survive. If the enquiry is not taken to its logical conclusion by the State Government, we grant liberty to the Petitioner to take out appropriate application for seeking appropriate directions in this very Public Interest Litigation. Civil Application No.192 of 2013 does not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly.

¶23

2 of 2

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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

Ghanshyam Mohanlal Parmar Vs Pushpa Ghanshyam Parmar