Disposed

Laxman Jairam Gore v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC1 Dec 2016WP/2790/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition regarding defected drainage line by the Gram Panchayat causing water ingress. The affidavit-in-reply showed the non-utilized fund had been recovered and deficiencies addressed. The court directed the Gram Panchayat to take steps for necessary repairs if the petitioner cooperates, then disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed Gram Panchayat to take appropriate steps for necessary repairs if petitioner cooperates; disposed of the writ petition.

Laxman Jairam Gore Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

wp2790.16.doc

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2790 OF 2016

¶5

Laxman s/o Jairam Gore .. PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & others .. RESPONDENTS

¶8

Mr. H.K. Munde, advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.B. Joshi, AGP for the State.

¶9

=====

¶10

CORAM : R.M. BORDE & SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ. DATE : 1^st DECEMBER, 2016.

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

Grievance raised by petitioner in the instant petition appears to have been redressed as has been disclosed in affidavit-in-reply presented on behalf of Zilla Parishad, Nanded. It is recorded in paragraphs 7 to 11 as below :

¶13

I say and submit that, the respondent no. 5 has issued directions to one Mr. Shivaji Dhawale, Extension officer, Panchayat Samiti,Kandhar for conducting an inquiry of C.C. Drain work carried out in respondent no. 8 village by order dated 19.11.2015. Accordingly, the Extension Officer has conducted the inquiry and submitted the Report dated 17.12.2015. it is submitted that, the funds are already sanctioned by the Government on the basis of Grant already sanctioned the funds have been released to the Gram Panchayat, Manaspuri. The respondent no. 7 and 8 have drawn th amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- but the expenditure were incurred to the tune of Rs. 1,82,654/-. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 1,67,000/- is not utilized and required to be recovered from the then Sarpanch and Gram Sevak.

¶14

I say and submit that, upon receipt of Inquiry Report, the present deponent has issued a show cause

¶15

wp2790.16.doc

¶16

¶17

notice dated 21.01.2016 to the then Gram Sevak and Sarpanch for depositing non-utilized amount sanctioned for the work of C.c. Drain. Thereafter, on 17.02.2016, the respondent no. 5 has sought permission from the respondent no. 3, Chief Executive officer to lodge complaints against the then Gram Sevak and Sarpanch if they do not deposited the nonutilized / misappropriated amount. Annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit “R-1” is a copy of letter dated 17.02.2016.

¶18

That, the then Gram Sevak has deposited the amount of Rs.99,000/- in the account of Gram Panchayat Manaspuri. It is submitted that, the then Gram Sevak Mr. R.B. Deshmukh has misappropriated the amount which has not been utilized with malafide intention, therefore, on 30.04.2016 the respondent no. 5 has permanently stopped two annual increments of Mr. Deshmukh and one annual increment for temporary one year of Mr. P.B. Dikkatwar is stopped as he has issued false certificate of no work carried out previously. Annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit “R2” Colly are the copies of order dated 30.04.2016.

¶19

It is most respectfully submitted that, on 03.05.2016, the respondent no. 5 has issued show cause notice to Shivkanya Vishwanath Kide, the then Sarpanch of Village Manaspuri as to why the action should not be taken against you. Annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit “R-3” is a copy of show cause notice dated 03.05.2016.

¶20

I say and submit that, the then Gram Sevak Mr. R.B. Deshmukh has deposited the misappropriated amount of Rs.99,000/- in the account of Gram Panchayat Manaspuri and his two annual increments have also been stopped permanently. Annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit “R-4” is a copy of letter dated 09.06.2016.

¶21

Petitioner appears to have been aggrieved on account of defect in laying down drainage line by the Gram Panchayat which has resulted in carriage of drain water originating from the residence of petitioner outside the drainage line. Learned counsel for Gram Panchayat states on instructions that appropriate remedial measures would be taken if

¶22

wp2790.16.doc

¶23

¶24

petitioner co-operates the Gram Panchayat. Learned counsel for petitioner states on instructions that his client would co-operate and would permit the Gram Panchayat to make repairs in respect of drainage line.

¶25

Gram Panchayat may take appropriate steps for carrying out necessary repairs so that the grievance of petitioner would be redressed.

¶26

In view of above, writ petition is disposed of.

¶27

( SANGITRAO S. PATIL ) ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶28

dyb

Laxman Jairam Gore v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxman Jairam Gore v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pandurang Kushaba Bankar Died Lrs Uttam Pandurang Bankar Died Lrs Jyotibai Uttam Bankar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pratibha Niketan Education Society through Its General Secretary and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anothers

Aniket Ashok Sonwane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sugriv Manikrao Karad and Another Vs the State Co. Operative Election Authority and Others

Shankar Digambar Jadhav Vs the Director and Commissioner Mumbai and Others

Nanasaheb Chaganrao Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra