Disposed

Vitthal Annarao Hajgude and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC21 Mar 2017PIL/114/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a PIL alleging embezzlement due to cash disbursements under the Watershed Management Scheme contrary to state policy. Noting prior court directives were followed with departmental inquiries yielding punishments for some officials, the Court accepted the State's assurance of further action and dismissed the PIL.

What did the court decide?

PIL disposed of as grievances substantially redressed by departmental action and assurance of prosecution.

Vitthal Annarao Hajgude and Others Vs the… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

PIL No.114/2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

29 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 114 OF 2015

¶5

VITTHAL ANNARAO HAJGUDE AND OTHERS

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶8

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Biradar R.D.

¶9

Mr. Rohit Deo, Advocate General with Shri AB Girase, Govt.

¶10

Pleader for Resp.Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 to 9;

¶11

Mr. Nagode D.G. For R/11.

¶12

CORAM: R.M.BORDE &
P.R.BORA,JJ.

¶13

DATE : 21st MARCH,2017.

¶14

PER COURT

¶15

1)Heard. The prime allegation of the
petitioners in the Public Interest Litigation
relates to breach of policy directives,
prescribing the disbursement of amount in respect

¶16

of the works carried out under the Water Shed
Management Scheme (for short, the Scheme).

¶17

2)The State Government has issued certain

¶18

policy directives thereby instructing the
officials, cast with the responsibility to

¶19

2 PIL No.114/2015

¶20

supervise the works under the aforesaid Scheme,
to disburse the amount to the contractors for the
works carried out by them, by way of cheque or
deposit of the amount in their bank accounts
instead of cash disbursement.

¶21

3)Revised directives / instructions, as
referred to above, were issued in the year 2008.
It is alleged that contrary to the said
directives issued by the Government in respect of
disbursement of the amount, the officers of the
Agriculture Department, who were entrusted with
the responsibility to supervise the works under
the Scheme, have disbursed the amount in cash.
The petitioners, therefore, express a reasonable
apprehension that the amount must have been
misappropriated and embezzled.

¶22

4)The petitioners in order to substantiate
their claim have quoted two instances. It is

¶23

alleged that the officers of the Agriculture
Department, viz. Shri Tukaram Bhise and Gopal

¶24

3 PIL No.114/2015

¶25

Jadhav, withdrew the amount themselves instead of
making the payment thereof to the contractors and
thereby committed misappropriation. The

¶26

petitioners have expressed apprehension that such
irregularity in respect of payment of amount in
cash, might have committed at different places in
the State, and as such, there is every room of
doubt to draw inference that the amount, which is

¶27

expected to be utilized for the works in
implementation of the Scheme, might have been
embezzled by the employees/officers entrusted
with supervision of the works to be carried out
under the Scheme.

¶28

5)The petitioners, earlier, did approach

¶29

this Court by presenting Writ Petition No.
4744/2014 raising the identical allegations.

¶30

Apart from the allegations in respect of
disbursement of the funds/amount, contrary to the
directives of the State Government, the
petitioners had raised an issue in respect of
award of contract for amount above Rs.3,00,000/-

¶31

4 PIL No.114/2015

¶32

by adopting E-tendering process in view of the

¶33

Government Resolution issued by the State on
26.11.2014. The challenge raised to the

¶34

Government decision for allotting the works by
adopting methodology of E-tendering process, has
been turned down by this Court. So far as the
grievance raised by the petitioners in respect of
non-observance of the instructions relating to
disbursement of the amount to be utilized under
the Scheme is concerned, this court issued
directives to the State to enquire into the
irregularities. Liberty was granted to the
petitionerstotenderappropriate

¶35

representation/complaint to Respondent No.6

¶36

therein and it was further directed to the
concerned respondent to take appropriate measures
for redressal of the grievances of the
petitioners.

¶37

6)After dismissal of the petition, it does
appear that the petitioners in Writ Petition
No.4744/2014, some of whom are also the

¶38

5 PIL No.114/2015

¶39

petitioners in the instant PIL, approached this
CourtbypresentingContemptPetition

¶40

No.459/2015, wherein it was contended that the

¶41

directives issued by this Court in the writ
petition decided earlier, in respect of holding
of an enquiry against the officials, who were
responsible for making cash payment, contrary to
the policy of the State Government, have not been
adhered to.

¶42

.After considering the affidavit in reply
tendered on behalf of the respondents, the
Contempt Petition came to be disposed of. A
statement was made on behalf of the respondents
in the Contempt Petition that departmental

¶43

enquiry has been initiated against 14 employees
and some of the employees/officers are also
placed under suspension. This Court, noticing
the compliance of the directives issued by it
while disposing of the aforesaid writ petition,
proceeded to dispose of the contempt petition.

¶44

7)The petitioners in the instant PIL, some

¶45

6 PIL No.114/2015

¶46

of whom were also the parties to the earlier
petition bearing WP No.4744/2014, are making the
identical grievances. The petitioners contend

¶47

that the Respondent/State has not conducted a
proper enquiry in respect of disbursement of
large amount of funds, which was expected to be
utilized for implementation of the Scheme, has

¶48

been spent contrary to the directives of the
State Government. It is also contended that the
officials, who were responsible for disbursement

¶49

of the amount in cash contrary to the policy
directives of the State, have not been dealt with
departmentally and no action, whatsoever, has
been taken against them. The petitioners have

¶50

made the allegations that in fact huge amount is
spent for implementation of the Scheme, actually
the work has not been executed in respect of the
quantities in proportion with the amount that has
been spent. The allegation made in the PIL is
not supported by specific pleadings nor any
material has been placed on record. Mere
allegation made in the PIL, that too without

¶51

7 PIL No.114/2015

¶52

there being any support to substantiate the
allegation, does not deserve to be accepted.

¶53

8)The learned Advocate General appearing

¶54

for the State, has pointed out that in pursuance

¶55

to the directives issued by this Court in Writ
Petition No.4744/2014, an enquiry has been
conducted in respect of violation of the
directives issued by the State relating to
disbursement of the amount in cash by the
officials of the Agriculture Department who were
entrusted with the responsibility of supervising

¶56

the work under the Scheme. It was noticed, after
due enquiry, that there is violation in respect

¶57

of the directives issued by the State Government
and an amount to the tune of Rs.92,00,00,000/-
(ninety two crores) has been disbursed in cash by

¶58

the officials of the Agriculture Department to
the contractors. The total disbursement made
contrary to the directives and in irregular

¶59

manner is to the extent of about 1.79% of the
total disbursement of the amount under the

¶60

8 PIL No.114/2015

¶61

Scheme.

¶62

9)The learned Advocate General, on

¶63

instructions, makes a statement that appropriate
enquiry in respect of violations relating to
disbursement of the amount, would be conducted
and those, who would be found responsible and
guilty for misappropriation of public funds,
would be dealt with appropriately. It is
further assured that any official of the
Agriculture Department or any other Government
employees if found involved in commission of
misappropriation of the public funds or any other
offence relating to public funds, would be
prosecuted and appropriate steps would be taken
against them within a period of six months from
today.

¶64

.It has also been pointed out that prima
facie 14 officials of the Agriculture department
are found responsible for violating the
directives of the State Government in respect of
utilization/disbursement of the funds. The names
of the officers are mentioned in the affidavit in

¶65

9 PIL No.114/2015

¶66

reply presented on behalf of the State
Government.

¶67

10)The learned Advocate General, on

¶68

instructions, further makes a statement that
departmental enquiry proceedings have already
been initiated against those 14 officials of the
Agriculture department and the same would be
concluded within six months from today. The
statements made on behalf of the State by the
learned Advocate General are accepted.

¶69

.It is further pointed out that
appropriatedepartmentalproceedingswas

¶70

initiated against two officials named in the PIL
and considering the outcome of the departmental
proceedings, punishment has been imposed against
them.

¶71

11)Considering the steps taken on behalf of

¶72

the State Government against the erring officials

¶73

and in view of the assurance given by the learned
Advocate General on behalf of the State

¶74

10 PIL No.114/2015

¶75

Government, as recorded above, we are of the view
that the grievances raised by the petitioners in
the instant PIL stand substantially redressed.

¶76

12)The PIL, as such, stands disposed of.

¶77

bdv/

Vitthal Annarao Hajgude and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vitthal Annarao Hajgude and Others 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Gautam Baburao Maske and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Yasmin E. Tavaria Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Shri Shrikant Jetyappa Bansode Vs State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Sachin Anil Choughule and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shaikh Sameer Rashid and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Aam Aadmi Lok Manch through Its President Shri. P.P. Goyal Vs Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Kailash Chhagan Chaudhari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Santosh Hiralal Choudhari Alias Saratale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dhananjay Vitthalrao Deshmukh and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Maharashtra Adiwasi Mana Jamat Mitra Mandal, Nagpur through President B. v. Nannaware and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Babasaheb Eknath Wakchaure and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Syed Moinoddin Khutuboddin and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Poonam Sandeep Ghongade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ashok Champalal Bhutada and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others