Dismissed

Mr. Pushkaraj Shekherrao Indurkar v. the State of Maharashtra through Cabinet Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Sept 2016PIL/149/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a PIL seeking directives regarding registration of Ganpati mandals, donation fund collection, and safety guidelines. Bench directed petitioner to approach court with specific relief based on prior judgment in PIL No.148/2009 if excluded.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach court with specific relief after going through PIL No.148/2009 judgment.

Mr. Pushkaraj Shekherrao Indurkar Vs the State… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

skn 1/3 149.16-wp.sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

PIL NO. 149 OF 2016

¶4

Mr.Pushkaraj Shekherao Indurkar. ... Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents.

¶5

Uday Warunjikar with Bhushan Deshmukh for the petitioner.

¶6

A.B.Vagyani, Govt.Pleader with Vishal Thadani, AGP for the respondents.

¶7

CORAM : DR.MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J. AND M.S.SONAK, J. DATE : 2^nd September 2016.

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

In the present petition, the following reliefs are sought

¶10

for:

¶11

“A. Be pleased to direct the respondent herein to not to give the permission for celebrating public ganpati festival to the unregistered ganpati mandals, who has not been registered Bombay trust act & Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act.

¶12

B. Be pleased to direct the respondent herein to take the immediate action against the Ganpati Mandal, who are collecting donation funds for

¶13

skn 2/3 149.16-wp.sxw

¶14

celebrating festivals without taking prior permission from the charity commissioner.

¶15

C. Be pleased to direct the respondent herein to frame guideline for the safety of gathering people at Ganpati festivals which can avoid the unwanted situation like fire, heavy rain, stamped.

¶16

D. Be pleased to direct the respondent herein to issue the direction to the local bodies & Grampanchayat to make available the compulsory provide the lake or tank for the immersion of the God Ganpati ceremony.

¶17

E. Be pleased to direct the respondent herein to frame guideline for uniform method for molding God Ganpati Statute & the rules should be ensured that non-biodegradable & polluted martial should not be used while molding the Ganpati Statue.

¶18

F. Be pleased to direct the respondent herein to frame the rules for profess practise and propagate religion as per tradition of Hindu rituals and religious conformity.

¶19

G. Ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (a) to (e)”

¶20

On going through the reliefs sought in the petition on the averments in support of the prayers, we are of the opinion, there is no mention about particular incident with reference to the guidelines already said to have been issued in the light of the judgment dated 23^rd April 2015 in PIL No.148/2009 ( Shri Sharad Patil v. The State of Maharashtra ). The petitioner is directed to go

¶21

skn 3/3 149.16-wp.sxw

¶22

through the aforesaid judgment disposing of the PIL with reference to section 41(c) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 and then mould the reliefs suitably in case the earlier judgment of the Division Bench did not deal with the same. Reserving such liberty, the present petition is disposed of so that the petitioner can approach the Court with specific relief, if it was excluded on the earlier occasion.

¶23

(M.S.SONAK, J.) CHIEF JUSTICE

Mr. Pushkaraj Shekherrao Indurkar v. the State of Maharashtra through Cabinet Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Pushkaraj Shekherrao Indurkar v. the State of Maharashtra through Cabinet Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Imranulla Khan Shafaatulla Khan Vs Shakil Ahmad Khan Peer Khan and 9 Others

Smt. Pinky W/O. Harendra Ukey Vs Union of India Thr. the Central Pollution Control Board, Parivesh Bhavan, Delhi and Others

Vilas S/O Poshatti Chandurakar Vs State of Maharashtra Ministry of Cooperation Marketing and Textiles Dept., Mumbai and Others

Maheshkumar S/O. Gopilal Agrawal and Another Vs the State of Maha. through Its Secretary, Co-Operation, Marketing and Textile Dept. and Others

Rajratna J. Jamnik Vs State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Anita Anil Chavan Vs Commissioner of Police and 6 Ors.

Jan Sahayog Samajik Sanstha Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 4 Others

Parisar Ics Colony and Anr. Vs the State Govt.of Maharashtra and Ors.

Thakkar Kanji Morarjee and Anr. Vs the Charity Commissioner State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Mrs Indumati M. Zaveri and 21 Ors. Vs Mr Mahesh Bhogilal Sonawala and 28 Ors.

M/S Maooli Land Developers and 2 Ors. Vs Kashibai Waman Patil and 5 Ors.

Shivaji Jagannath Kshirsagar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Mr. Imran Ibrahim Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Shivaji Jagannath Kshirsagar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary and Ors.