Disposed

Abhimanyu Davlat Kamble and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Jul 2016PIL/155/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL regarding misappropriation of funds and incomplete water/stage works, the High Court directed the Zilla Parishad to complete unfinished works within six months. It also ordered action against a Sarpanch involved in the matter within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Zilla Parishad to complete unfinished works within six months; direction to Chief Officer to take action against Respondent No. 5 within three months.

Abhimanyu Davlat Kamble and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Bombay HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1-pil-155-2010

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.155 OF 2010

¶4

Abhimanyu Davlat Kamble and Another ...Petitioners vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others ...Respondents

¶5

Mr. Rajesh Patil, for the Petitioners Mr. Asif Patel, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. S.C. Mangle, for Respondent Nos. 4 and 8.

¶6

CORAM : SHANTANU KEMKAR & MAKARAND KARNIK, JJ. DATE : JULY 18, 2016

¶7

P.C.:

¶8

Parties through their counsel.

¶9

2. Through this Public Interest Litigation, the Petitioners are

¶10

seeking direction against Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to initiate action against Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 by recovering funds misappropriated by them and wasted due to their negligence and also seeking initiation of criminal complaint against them for the fraud alleged to have been committed by them. The Petitioners are also seeking direction to the Gram Panchayat of village Tivare Ghera and or the

1/3

Vishal Parekar

1-pil-155-2010

Zilla Parishad, Ratnagiri to complete the incomplete works of water storage tank and cultural stage and roads in Buddhist Wadi and to furnish remaining equipments meant for individual toilets to the 25 beneficiaries.

¶15

On being notice, the Respondent-State filed an affidavit in reply stating therein that the Assistant Commissioner, Inquiry submitted the final inquiry report to the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ratnagiri and action has been taken against Respondent No. 6. The said report has been filed with the reply.

¶16

On going through the said report, it is revealed that the work which was to be performed by Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 has not been completed and as per the inquiry report, the departmental action has been taken against Respondent No. 6. However, it is revealed that no action has been taken against Respondent No. 5 who was the then Sarpanch.

¶17

Having considered the submissions made by the learned

¶18

counsel for the parties and having gone through the affidavit and the

2/3

Vishal Parekar

1-pil-155-2010

inquiry report, we direct the Respondent Zilla Parishad to complete the unfinished work as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶23

As regards the allegations of the Petitioners that Respondent No. 6 is also involved in the matter but no action has been taken against him by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ratnagiri, we direct the Chief Officer consider this aspect of the matter and take appropriate action in accordance with law against Respondent No. 6 within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

¶24

The Public Interest Litigation stands disposed of as such.

¶25

The parties to act on the authenticated copy of the order.

¶26

3/3

¶27

Vishal Parekar

Abhimanyu Davlat Kamble and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhimanyu Davlat Kamble and Anr. 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

Shivraj Shrimant Kharbad Vs the Government of India and Others

Shri Mangesh S/O Vishnupant Bute Vs State of Maharashtra Thr Collector Akola and Others

Ankut Prabhakar Patil Vs State of Maharashshtra, through Chief Minister

Chandrakant Patilba Kulat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mr. Ramesh Lalji Jaiswal Vs the Administrator, Dadra Nagar Haveli and Ors.

Mr. Sapan Shrivastava Vs Securities and Exchange Board of India

Shalini Nandkumar Oka and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shalini Nandkumar Oka and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ashokkumar Mangilal Chordia (Jain) Vs Thane Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Maqsood Ahmad Maqbool Ahmad Ansari Vs Mr. Vaqas Ahmad Sagheer Ahmad Malik and Ors.

Santosh Kumar Singh Jha and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Ors.

Rita Palace Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. Vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Mr. Chandru Khemlani Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors.

Abhimanyu Davlat Kamble and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.