Dismissed

Prakash Bhimrao Pingal and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC20 Feb 2015PIL/158/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Due to the non-appearance of petitioners for the final hearing and lack of updated grievances, the Bombay High Court disposed of the PIL regarding refund of cooperative society deposits. The court discharged the rule and advised an application to revive the petition if non-refund persists.

What did the court decide?

Rule discharged; petition disposed of pending a possible revival application if non-refund persists.

Prakash Bhimrao Pingal and Ors. Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

1 pil158-04

¶2

sas

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.158 OF 2004

¶6

Prakash Bhimrao Pingale & Ors ..Petitioners. V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents.

¶7

None for the petitioners.

¶8

Mr.S.N.Patil AGP for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶9

CORAM : A.S.OKA AND

¶10

A.K. MENON, JJ.

¶11

DATED : 20TH FEBRUARY, 2015

¶12

P.C. :-

¶13

When the petition is called out for final hearing, none appeared for the petitioners. Even on 23^rd January, 2015, none had appeared for the petitioners. The only substantive prayer in this PIL is the prayer clause (b) which reads as under:-

¶14

“ (b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to take immediate action against respondent No.4 for refusing to refund the amount of deposit of its members. “

¶15

There is an affidavit filed by Mr.Vilas Panditrao Sole, the Regional Director (Sugar), Ahmednagar dated 4^th February, 2005. The affidavit makes a reference to the provisions of bye-law No.64

¶16

2 pil158-04

¶17

of the fourth respondent. It will be necessary to make a reference

¶18

to paragraph 4 of the said affidavit which reads thus :-

¶19

“With reference to Para Nos.8 to 10 of the Public Interest Litigation, I say that as per the provisions of bye-law 64 of the Respondent No.4, Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, Respondent No.4 as per the Government Order can deduct convertible deposits from out of sugarcane supplied for crushing to the Respondent No.4 by the members / non-members. These convertible deposits so deducted by the Respondent No.4 may be converted to share of the Members or as termed deposits for a period of five to ten years. In case of cancellation of Membership of the individual the amount of deposits, subject to deduction of recoverable amount from concerned Member, the Respondent No.4 has to repay said amount to the individual whose Membership is cancelled.

¶20

I further say and submit that the convertible deposits which are to be converted into share of the Member, the amount of deposit over and above the amount of share value has to be repaid by the Respondent No.4 to the Member Deposits.”

¶21

In further part of paragraph 4, it is stated that the fourth respondent has refunded non refundable (convertible) deposits of `185.45 lacs during the period 1980-81 to 2003-04. It is stated that in the year 2004, a resolution was passed by the fourth respondent recording that considering the financial constraints, the amount should not be refunded. Reliance is placed on instructions issued by the second respondent to refund the deposit of the depositors with interest thereon.

¶22

3 pil158-04

¶23

There is an affidavit of Mr. Namdeo Vithoba Borwadkar, the Managing Director of the fourth respondent. It is stated therein that the fourth respondent may be granted time of three years to repay the deposits. This affidavit has been filed on 11^th July, 2005. There is a counter affidavit filed by the petitioners on 20^th October, 2005. However, thereafter, there is no affidavit filed on record making any grievance that the fourth respondent has not paid any further amounts. None had appeared for the petitioners on both occasions when the petition was called out for final hearing. The petition of the year 2004 cannot be kept pending. We, accordingly, dispose of the petition. Rule is discharged. If the petitioners find that the first respondent has not refunded the amount to the substantial number of depositors, the petitioners can always take out an application for revival of the PIL.

¶24

(A.K.MENON, J.) (A.S.OKA, J.)

Prakash Bhimrao Pingal and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Bhimrao Pingal and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Bhaskar Ganesh Datar Vs the Collector-Collector Officer,Ratnagiri and Ors.

Hiranand Kimatram Aswani Vs Commissioner, Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation, Pimpri

Bhaskar Ganesh Datar Vs the Collector-Collector Officer,Ratnagiri and Ors.

Mr. Rajesh Maruti Kamble Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 4 Ors.

Manubhai Paragji Vashi Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vikas Madhukar Ambade Vs District Collector, Raigad and Ors.

Uttam Manohar Kachre Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pundlik S/O Baliram Shinde Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Public Works Deparment, Mumbai and 4 Others

Bhaskar Ganesh Datar Vs the Collector-Collector Officer,Ratnagiri and Ors.

Bhaskar Shankar Aher and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vivek Manohar Luthria Vs Branch Officer, Pavna Dam and Ors.

M/S. Kausar Baug Co-Operative Housing Society and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Sampatrao Balkrishna Suryavanshi Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. and Anr.

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited Vs Sarpanch, Grampanchayat, Nagaon and Ors.