Disposed

Rajendra Baliram Sagar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC7 Jul 2014WP/5464/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged rehabilitation measures for earthquake affected persons. The Court observed Supreme Court directions made the matter subjudice, directing petitioners to approach the Divisional Commissioner within eight weeks with a representation. The writ petition was disposed of without further interference.

What did the court decide?

No order passed; petitioners directed to approach Divisional Commissioner within eight weeks; writ petition disposed without further interference.

Rajendra Baliram Sagar and Others Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp546414.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5464 OF 2014

¶3

Rajendra s/o Baliram Sagar and others

¶4

Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & others

¶7

Respondents

¶8

Mr.S.N.Lale Yelwatkar, advocate for petitioners. Mr.S.K.Kadam, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 to 5.

¶9

CORAM : R.M.BORDE &

¶10

V.L.ACHLIYA, JJ. DATE :07^th July, 2014

¶11

PER COURT:

¶12

1 Leave to add Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad as party Respondent.

¶13

Learned Counsel for petitioners seeks leave to delete name of Respondent No.6 from the array of Respondents. Leave granted. Name of Respondent No.6 stands deleted.

¶14

Heard learned Counsel for petitioners and Shri S.K.Kadam, learned A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶15

2 The petitioners claim to be earthquake affected persons and grievance raised in the petition is as regards rehabilitation measures taken by the State Government. The petitioners submit that though they are entitled, the State authorities have not taken proper measures for rehabilitation in accordance with the scheme formulated by the State Government.

¶16

{2}

¶17

wp546414.odt

¶18

3 On consideration of identical issues raised in the Special Leave Petition, the Supreme Court has issued certain directions on 16.01.2002 while dealing with Civil Appeals No.510 to 515 of 2002. The directions issued by the Supreme Court are as quoted below:

¶19

"Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶20

Leave granted.

¶21

Mr.Bipin Kumar Shrimali, Deputy Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, ERCR & FD, Mantralaya, has filed an affidavit on behalf of the State of Maharashtra and further following statement was made by learned counsel appearing for the appellant:

¶22

"The work of Rehabilitation Latur earthquake which took place on 30th September, 1993 and the work of postdisaster reconstruction programme has been completed save in minor respects as detailed in the State's affidavit dated 29th November, 2001 and which will be concluded by 30th April, 2002. It was also stated that if there is any surviving grievance of any earthquake affected person, the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad has been directed to examine such complaints and to take action thereon and if any earthquake affected person is not satisfied with the action taken by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, he may make a representation to the Secretary and Special Commissioner in the Relief and Rehabilitation Department of the

¶23

{3}

¶24

wp546414.odt

¶25

Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai which will be attended promptly."

¶26

In view of the aforesaid affidavit and the statement of learned counsel for the appellant, we feel that no further order is required in these appeals. Since the order passed by the High Court has substantially been complied with, notice for contempt issued by the High Court against the appellant is set aside.

¶27

The Civil Appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶28

4 In view of the decision of the Supreme Court, as quoted above, it will be open for petitioners to approach the Divisional Commissioner with appropriate representation putting forth their grievance relating to rehabilitation measures adopted by the State Government. If petitioners tender such representation within a period of eight weeks from today, the Divisional Commissioner may look into the matter and issue appropriate directions, if deemed necessary, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four months from today.

¶29

5 In view of above, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶30

V.L.ACHLIYA JUDGE

¶31

R.M.BORDE

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

adb/wp546414

Rajendra Baliram Sagar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Baliram Sagar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Ganesh Punjaram Ratnaparkhe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Devidasrao Rangnathrao Khartude Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Balaji Maruti Chendake and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Sham Sudhakar Kasar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shrikrishna Shivaji Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra and Othres

Babynanda Indarsing Parihar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others