Disposed

Shambhuraj Shivajirao Desai v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Jul 2014PIL/90/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In PIL regarding development works funding, Court held that since petitioner's representation was considered and Committee retained discretionary power over fund utilization, no further direction is warranted; PIL disposed with remedy against Committee decision kept open.

What did the court decide?

PL disposed as no further direction required; remedy to challenge Executive Committee decision kept open.

Shambhuraj Shivajirao Desai Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2014)

20-pil-90-2011.doc

Ladda-PA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No.90 OF 2011.

¶7

Shambhuraj Shivajirao Desai ..Petitioner Vs State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents.

¶8

Mr Vineet B. Naik, Sr. Advocate i/by Mrs Deepa Ahuja for the Petitioner.

¶9

Mr J.S. Deo, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, 6 and 7. Mr Uday P. Warunjikar for Respondent Nos. 8 and 9.

¶10

Mr Rajiv Patil, Sr. Advocate i/by Mr Onkar Warange for Respondent Nos. 10 to 14.

¶11

CORAM : A.S. OKA AND A.S.CHANDURKAR,JJ. DATE : 23rd July, 2014.

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

The order dated 21^st March,2013 records that only the

¶14

prayer clause (B) survives for consideration. The prayer clause (B)

¶15

reads thus :

¶16

“Be further pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus against the respondent Nos. 6 to 8 to forthwith approve, sanction and execute the 83 development works proposed by the petitioner vide his letter dated 18^th June, 2009 Annexure “B” to the petition or any other development works, if already approved, as

1 / 4

20-pil-90-2011.doc

may be required in Patan Taluka, District Satara”.

¶21

In compliance with the directions issued by this Court an affidavit has been filed by Shri Pradeep Prabhakar Gosavi, the Deputy Secretary of the General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said affidavit read thus:

¶22

“4. The petitioner has demanded Rs.5.25 crores for 83 works in his own constituency, i.e. Patan Taluka. Here, it is pertinent to note that the discretionary powers of acceptance or rejection of a particular work proposed are bestowed upon the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee, in its meeting held on dated 29.7.2013, considered the representation of the petitioner to make available an amount of Rs.5.17 crores to carry out 79 development works. However, the Executive Committee did not sanction the works proposed by the petitioner. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit1 is a copy of Minutes of Meeting dated 29.7.2013.”

¶23

“5. Out of total fund of Rs.25.00 crores funds available for distribution, 8.70 crores were earmarked for Patan Tahsil as per the percentage basis, which includes the previous share of Rs.5.25 crores. 22 works costing Rs.3.36 crores which are having the technical sanction of Public Works Department and have been sanctioned by the said committee in its meeting dated 3.3.2014. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit 2 is a copy of Minutes of Meeting dated 3.3.2014. Recently, works costing Rs.5.31 crores have received technical sanction of Public Works Department, and a proposal to release the balance amount of Rs.5.31 crores for Patan Tahsil is sent for the

2 / 4

20-pil-90-2011.doc

approval of the Chairman of the Koyna Earthquake Rehabilitation Fund Committee.”

¶28

Paragraph 4 records the decision of the Executive Committee by which the representation of the petitioner has been considered and it was decided not to sanction works proposed by the petitioner. Paragraph 5 of the affidavit indicates that certain works have been sanctioned in relation to Patan taluka.

¶29

The submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that minutes of the meeting annexed to the affidavit show that funds allocated or earmarked for Patan taluka will be available even during subsequent financial years. His submission is that the Committee should be directed to consider the works suggested by the petitioner while considering the utilization of the amounts which will be available for Patan taluka in the subsequent years.

¶30

The affidavit filed by Shri Pradeep Prabhakar Gosavi, the Deputy Secretary shows that the Committee has considered the representation of the petitioner.

¶31

Paragraph 5 of the affidavit shows that 22 works in relation to Patan Taluka have been sanctioned.

¶32

As and when balance amount allocated to the share of Patan Taluka is available, it is for the Executive Committee to consider

3 / 4

20-pil-90-2011.doc

in what manner the said amount should be utilized for the benefit of Patan Taluka. As representation made by the petitioner has been already considered by the Executive Committee, we are unable to issue a direction directing the said Committee to consider the works suggested by the petitioner. It is for the Executive Committee to decide in what manner additional funds, as and when the same are available, should be utilized. Thus, no further directions are required to be issued in this Public Interest Litigation. Accordingly, the Public Interest Litigation is disposed of. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that remedy of the petitioner to challenge the decision of the Executive Committee may be kept open. Notwithstanding the disposal of this Public Interest Litigation, it will be open for the petitioner to adopt an appropriate remedy for challenging the decision.

¶37

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

¶38

4 / 4

Shambhuraj Shivajirao Desai v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shambhuraj Shivajirao Desai 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

Rail Parishad (N.G.O.), through President, Shri. Bipin M. Gandhi Vs Union of India and Ors.

Gajanan Vithalrao Boche Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ameet Bhaskar Satam Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Public Prosecutor and Ors.

Mumbai Grahak Panchayat, through Chairman, Mr. Shirish Vasudeo Deshpande Vs Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Railways

Sonal S. Khanolkar and Anr. Vs Union of India, through Director, Dept of Personnel and Training and Ors.

Shri. Gajanan Damodar Shelar and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shashikant Anant Adhyapak and Ors. Vs the City Engineer - Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Oneil Kinny and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Gram Panchayat, Chale, through Sarpanch Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Revenue and Various Dept and Ors.

Smt. Shantabai Prakash Kambale Vs Mallikarjun Bassappa Avaji and Ors.

Suvarna Laxman Shinde Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Mallikarjun Shivkaran Shegaonkar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, Ministry of Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Shri. Yuvraj Vasantrao Desai Vs the Dy. Collector (Caste Certificate), Rajeshri Shahu Suvidha Kendra and Anr.

Mallikarjun Shivkaran Shegaonkar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, Ministry of Urban Development Dept and Ors.