Dismissed

Mr. Prakash Hanumant Tare v. Mr. Anil D. Datar and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Sept 2016PIL/181/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court dismissed a PIL filed by a retired DRDO scientist alleging corruption and misappropriation of government funds. The bench held the petition was a personal grudge against senior officers with no genuine public interest involved.

What did the court decide?

The petition directing investigation, appointment of inquiry committee, and suspension of officers was dismissed.

Mr. Prakash Hanumant Tare Vs Mr. Anil D. Datar… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2016)

1/3

PIL 181 of 2014

Vat

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. 181 OF 2014

¶7

Prakash Hanumant Tare ….Petitioner Vs. Anil M. Datar, DG (ACE) and Ors. ….Respondents

¶8

¶9

Mr.Nikhilesh Pote for the Petitioner Mr. Y.R. Mishra a/w. Mr. D.A. Dube for Union of India.

¶10

¶11

CORAM : V. M. KANADE & SMT. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ

¶12

DATE : SEPTEMBER 21, 2016

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner

¶15

and learned counsel for the Union of India.

¶16

The Petitioner claims to be a scientist, who has retired recently from Defence Research Development Organization (DRDO) (in short 'the said Organization”. The Petitioner after his retirement, has now filed this present PIL, alleging that there is continuous misappropriation of the Government Funds and corruption is going on in the said Department. He is, therefore, seeking various directions from this Court, directing the investigating agency to investigate into the matter

¶17

2/3

¶18

PIL 181 of 2014

¶19

and take action against the corrupt higher ranking officers of the said Organization. Number of allegations have been made against these persons.

¶20

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India has submitted that the Petitioner has filed the OA before the Central Administrative Tribunal, seeking promotion and the said OA has been dismissed and, therefore, the present PIL is filed for harassing the officers.

¶21

This submission, of course, has denied by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. The Petitioner is seeking the following reliefs:

¶22

“(A) That Notices may kindly be issued against the Respondents directing them to submit their reply.

¶23

(B) That an Inquiry Committee may be appointed to assess the corrupt practices and misappropriation of Government funds which is carried out by respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶24

¶25

(D) That the Respondent No.7, be directed to take immediate strict action as suggested in the Report of the Inquiry Committee and as deemed fit against the persons

¶26

3/3 PIL 181 of 2014

¶27

involved in these misappropriation of Government funds and exchequre under the law.

¶28

(E) The Respondent Nos.1 to 3 have committed above mentioned irregularities constituting corruption and in spite of producing sufficient evidence, no action was initiated against them, shows the clout and influence wielded by them in DRDO. They may therefore be immediately suspended/ dismissed from the service, so that they cannot influence on the further on the further progress of inquiry.”

¶29

The Petitioner obviously, in our view, appears to have a grudge

¶30

against the senior officers, who are working in the office / department and after his retirement, he has filed this PIL. We are of the view that there is no any public interest involved in this PIL. Hence, PIL is dismissed.

¶31

SWAPNA S. JOSHI, J. V.M. KANADE, J.

¶32

Vaishali Tikam

Mr. Prakash Hanumant Tare v. Mr. Anil D. Datar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Prakash Hanumant Tare v. Mr. Anil D. Datar 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

Sarti Seva Sangh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mr. Netaji Balaram Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sanjeev Phadtare and Ors. Vs the Pune Municipal Corpn. and Ors.

Society for Nature Animals and People Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Sonaji S/O Ganuji Gawai Vs Zilla Parishad, Akola through Its Ceo, Akola (Water and Sanitation Department) and 5 Others

Surendrakumar K Bajpai S/O.Krishnakumar B Bajpai Vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Mukesh Ramesh Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra and 7 Ors.

Citizens Grievences Redressal Foundation Vs the State of Maharashtra Throuth Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation and Anr.

Sarti Seva Sangh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mr. Netaji Balaram Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Lopesh Shantilal Vora Vs Union of India, Thru. Railway Ministry and Ors.

Vikrant Chandrahas Tawde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Smt. Neelkamal Singh Vs Shri. Suresh Kumar Singh

Dinar Yashwant Sohoni Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.