Allowed

Dr. Dilip Shakar Bade v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC15 Nov 2014WP/1551/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the inadequate number of Forensic Science Laboratories in Maharashtra due to heavy case pendency. Court noted large pending backlog. Directed respondents to decide on establishing more labs or enhancing facilities within six months.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to take a decision on establishing more Forensic Science Laboratories or improving existing facilities within six months and communicate the same to the petitioner.

Dr. Dilip Shakar Bade Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

(1) W.P. No. 1551 of 2002

¶2

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

¶3

Writ Petition No. 1551 of 2002

¶4

Dr. Dilip s/o. Shankar Bade, Age : 43 years, Occupation : Doctor, R/o. Nathnagar, Pathardi, Taluka : Pathardi, District : Ahmednagar. .. Petitioner.

¶5

versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra, (Through the Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai).

¶7

The Director, Forensic Science Laboratories, State of Maharashtra, Hans Bhugra Marg, Vidyanagari, Kalina, Santacruz (East), Mumbai - 400 098. .. Respondents.

¶8

Mr. S.R. Shirsath, Advocate, holding for Mr. S.S. Jadhavar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶9

Mrs. M.A. Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 and 2.

¶10

(2) W.P. No. 1551 of 2002

¶11

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & A.M. BADAR, JJ.

¶12

DATE : 27TH NOVEMBER 2014

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) :

¶14

Heard Adv. Mr. S.R. Shirsath h/f. Adv. Mr. S.S. Jadhavar for the petitioner, and learned AGP Mrs. M.A. Deshpande for the respondents.

¶15

Perused earlier orders.

¶16

The learned Assistant Government Pleader has sought time to file affidavit in pursuance of earlier orders of this court. However, she has handed over a chart showing staff position as also, the number of matters looked into or pending before Forensic Science Laboratories in the State of Maharashtra. The data supplied is, as available in September 2014. Said charts are taken on record as Exhibit "X". The list of equipments and data whether they are in working condition or otherwise, is also made available. It is taken on record as Exhibit "Y". As the learned Assistant Government Pleader has received these charts from Directorate of Forensic Science Laboratories, Maharashtra State, filing affidavit in support of these charts is dispensed with.

¶17

Prayer of the petitioner is, to provide Forensic Science Laboratories in adequate number in the State of Maharashtra. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has pointed out that two more laboratories have been provided in the State of Maharashtra.

¶18

(3) W.P. No. 1551 of 2002

¶19

Perusal of chart at Exhibit "X" shows that about 10065 cases were pending for analysis in September 2014 and 13507 cases were received afresh. Thus, total pendency was 23572. Forensic Science Laboraties could submit reports in 10061 matters only and, therefore, presently about 13409 matters are till pending for analysis and examination.

¶20

Adv. Mr. Shirsath has pointed out that in several matters, the reports are not received within time or, on occasions, till the trial actually begins. In absence of reports, accused cannot be convicted or then succeed in getting bail. He further adds, that though there is no specific stipulation anywhere about the exact number required in any State or in any area, the State Government has to take a policy decision and determine the number of such laboratories required.

¶21

The learned Assistant Government Pleader submits, that the State Government is aware of all relevant facts and has been taking best possible steps to further the administration of justice.

¶22

During hearing, we find, that Forensic Science Laboratories appears to have been established at Revenue Division level. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, at this stage, states that there are nine mobile laboratories which are also catering to the system. Though all these facilities exist, the number of pending matters is quite large. According to Adv. Mr. Shirsath, the equipments available are also not in sufficient number and staff is also insufficient. We have noted that due to

¶23

(4) W.P. No. 1551 of 2002

¶24

more inflow of new matters, the closing balance is increasing. In similar PIL at Nagpur, this Court has already issued some directions.

¶25

In this situation, the request made by the petitioner cannot be said to be illfounded. However, what should be the sufficient number, cannot be decided on the basis of available data.

¶26

The data has already come before this court in the shape of two charts i.e. Exhibit "X" and Exhibit "Y" above.

¶27

The respondents are, therefore, directed to take an appropriate decision to find out the need of establishing more Forensic Science Laboratories at convenient places or then, to add to the existing facilities. Decision shall be taken within a period of six months from today. We also direct respondent no.1 to hear the petitioner, in the process, if the respondent no.1 finds it essential.

¶28

As cognizance of the matter has been taken in public interest, we direct respondent nos.1 and 2, to communicate their decision reached at the end of six months, to the petitioner, as also to Adv. Mr. Shirsath, on his address mentioned below, by Registered Post (A.D.) :

¶29

Shri Suhas R. Shirsat, Advocate, C/o. Advocate, Shri Santosh S. Jadhavar, Shri Ram Hari Apartment, Flat No.6, Plot No.8, N-2, CIDCO, Near Stadium, Aurangabad (Maharashtra).

¶30

¶31

The petitioner and / or his Advocate shall be at liberty to

¶32

(5) W.P. No. 1551 of 2002

¶33

approach again, if the grievance is not redressed or subsists even thereafter.

¶34

The Writ Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms and Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs.

¶35

( A.M. BADAR ) ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI )

¶36

JUDGE JUDGE

¶37

puranik / WP1551.02

Dr. Dilip Shakar Bade v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Dilip Shakar Bade v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sadashiv Waman Ware and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Satyawan Kishanrao Gokule and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gopal Petanna Gondge Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Aurangabad District Co-Op Agricultural and Rural Multipurpose Dev Bank Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Gangubai Govinda Godhave Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gokul Damu Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.