Dismissed

Manohar Kashinath Patil and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Rural Development and Water Resources and Ors.

Bombay HC29 Nov 2016PIL/230/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Public Interest Litigation seeking a writ to direct the State Government to reconsider its rejection of a demand for bifurcating a Gram Panchayat into three independent units. The Court held that the matter is a policy decision dependent on local opinion and factual considerations, where no vested right exists for the petitioners, and thus declined to intervene.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of; the Court declined to intervene and directed the petitioners to pursue the authorities for redressal.

Manohar Kashinath Patil and Ors. Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

PIL 230-2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 230 OF 2014

¶4

Manohar Kashinath Patil & Ors. .. Petitioners V/s State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶5

Mr. Suhas Deokar for the petitioner.

¶6

Mr. A.B. Vagyani, Government Pleader with Mr. M.M. Pabale, AGP for the State.

¶7

Mr. C.G. Gavnekar for respondent no.3.

¶8

CORAM: DR. MANJULA CHELLUR, CJ. & M.S. SONAK, J.

¶9

DATE : 29^th NOVEMBER 2016

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following reliefs:

¶12

“ (a) That by Writ of Mandamus and/or by appropriate Writ, Direction and Order, Your Lordships be pleased to direct the Respondent No.1 to reconsider demand for bifurcation of Respondent No.3 into 3 independent Gram Panchayats as recommended by Respondent No.2 in his Recommendation dated 24-25/05/2012 contained in Exhibit-B (Colly.);

¶13

(b) That by Writ of Mandamus and/or by appropriate Writ, Direction and Order, Your Lordships be pleased to quash and

1 of 3

ABS

PIL 230-2014

set aside the Decision of Respondent No.1 dated 15/10/2013 (annexed at Exhibit “D”) rejecting demand for bifurcation of Respondent No.3 into 3 independent Gram Panchayats as communicated by Respondent No.2 to Chief Executive Officer of Respondent No.4 vide his Communication dated 30/10/2013 annexed at Exhibit-C hereto.”

¶18

The ground for such prayers seems to be, in the opinion of the petitioners, the existing Panchayat may not be able to administer it properly so as to extend all the benefits. The petitioners have also narrated at several paragraphs the difficulties on account of geographical situation of different villages in the same panchayat when compared to some other villages.

¶19

From the affidavit in reply at page 191, we note that in the meeting of Gram Panchayat held on 18^th October 2011, 980 villagers were present. They all unanimously decided that there is no requirement of bifurcation of third Gram Panchayat and accordingly a resolution was made and the same was forwarded to the State Government. According to the State and even in terms of the Rules and the Statute, the opinion of the locals or residents of that Panchayat plays major role in taking a final call whether there has to be bifurcation or not. Apart from that opinion of the residents of the Panchayat, there could be extraordinary or special reason why bifurcation is needed. These are many factors which have to be considered in a meeting where all the stakeholders could give their

2 of 3

ABS

PIL 230-2014

opinion. In other words, this is not the floor where with certainty one could decide the issue, since it is purely a policy decision depending upon various factual consideration.

¶24

In that view of the matter, in the absence of any vested right as such in existence for the petitioners to seek such demand, we fail to understand how in the nature of a public interest litigation such cause of the petitioners which, according to the petitioners' perception, is best suited, could be adjudicated upon.

¶25

In the light of the above observations, we decline to intervene. However, the petitioners are at liberty to pursue the authorities concerned for redressal in the matter of bifurcation of Panchayat as claimed in the PIL.

¶26

The PIL is disposed of with the above observations.

¶27

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

¶28

3 of 3

¶29

ABS

Manohar Kashinath Patil and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Rural Development and Water Resources and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manohar Kashinath Patil and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Rural Development and Water Resources 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

Ashokkumar Krishnarao Sawant and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rajendra Bhausaheb Gondkar and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Yeshwanth Shenoy Vs Union of India and 6 Others

Shri. Prakash P. Kukreja Vs Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation, through Commissioner and Anr.

Ashok Madavdas Parwani Vs Ulhasnagar Mun Icipal Corporation and Ors.

Court on Its Own Motion Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secretary, Dept. of Revenue, and Ors.

Shrikant Ganpati Mane and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.

Dr. Harshwardhan Madhusudan Modak and Anr. Vs Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Nilesh Balasaheb Bhintade Vs SBI Global Factors Ltd., and Ors.

Yeshwanth Shenoy Vs Union of India and 6 Others

Shri. Prakash P. Kukreja Vs Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation, through Commissioner and Anr.

Dhondiba Babaji Kamble (Since Decd) Shri. Vitthal Dhondiba Kamble Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dattatraya Mahadeo Patil and Ors. Vs the Collector and Deputy Director for Rehabilitation, Kolhapur and Ors.

Mr. Hari Pandurang Patil Vs the Collector, Kolhapur and Ors.