Disposed

Santosh S/O. Isram More v. State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Dept. of Village Development of Village Development Mumbai and

Bombay HC20 Sept 2017PIL/119/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL concerned alleged excessive expenditure or misappropriation by a Gram Panchayat. The court directed the Chief Executive Officer to review the Block Development Officer's report, afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, consider recoverable amounts, and pass suitable orders within a specified timeframe.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Chief Executive Officer to hear the petitioner, consider the BDO's report, and pass orders for recovery within four months if any amount is misappropriated.

Santosh S/O. Isram More Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2017)

Order

2009pil119.16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 119/2016.

¶6

Santosh Isram More - VERSUS-

¶7

State of Maharashtra and others.

¶8

Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶9

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.

¶10

DATE : SEPTEMBER 20, 2017.

¶11

Heard Shri S.U. Bhuyar, learned Counsel

¶12

for the petitioner, Shri S.M. Ghodeswar, learned A.G.P.

¶13

for respondent nos. 1,2 and 8, Shri S. Saoji, learned Counsel for respondent no.3 and 5 and Shri P.B.Patil, learned counsel for respondent nos. 6 and 7.

¶14

After order of this Court dated 11.08.2016 and 28.06.2017, a written submissions has been filed by respondent no.3. Along with that submission, enquiry report dated 06.09.2016, prepared by Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Chikhili has been enclosed. Shri Bhuyar, learned counsel for petitioner is not satisfied with that report and he has

Order

2009pil119.16

sought certain information under Right to Information Act. He is seeking adjournment.

¶19

After hearing respective counsel for respondents, we find that the grievance is about alleged excessive expenditure or mis appropriation by the Gram Panchayat. Report of Block Development Officer needs to be looked into by respondent no.3 Chief Executive Officer. Chief Executive Officer can at that stage also extend opportunity of hearing to petitioner.

¶20

Necessary records looked into by the Block Development Officer or then needed by the petitioner, can be made available at that juncture to him, and then suitable opportunity of hearing can be afforded.

¶21

In this situation, we direct petitioner to appear before respondent no.3 Chief Executive Officer on 30.10.2017, and to abide by his further instructions in the matter. Said Authority shall consider report of Block Development Officer mentioned supra, hear all concerned and pass suitable orders within a period of next three months. If any amount is found recoverable, necessary action as per law shall then be initiated and amount shall be recovered within next four months.

Order

2009pil119.16

With these directions and with liberty to petitioner to approach again, if any other grievance arises, we dispose of the present Public Interest Litigation. No costs.

¶26

JUDGE JUDGE

¶27

Rgd.

Santosh S/O. Isram More v. State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Dept. of Village Development of Village Development Mumbai and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh S/O. Isram More v. State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Dept. of Village Development of Village Development Mumbai and

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

Dnyaneshwar Vishwanath Jadhav Vs Sharad Dattatraya Jadhav and Ors.

Onkarnath Lalchandji Karva vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Prakash Laxman Jagtap and Anr. Vs the Pimpri - Chinchwad New Township Developement Authority and Ors.

Maruti Parshuram Shedge Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Dept of Rural Development and Ors.

Jayshri Vijaykumar Jambhale Vs Kulgaon-Badlapur Municipal Council, through Chief Officer, Kulgaon and Ors.

Citizen Circle for Social Welfare and Education Vs the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Rajkumar Mahadev Chorghe Vs General Manager, Western Railway and Ors.

Iqbal H. Shaikh and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ku. Suman Sampat Raut and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra, Directorate of Muncipal Administration and Others

Vishakha D/O Sudhakar Shrirame Vs the Dean, Govt. Medical College and Hospital, Chandrapur and Others

Sanjay S/O Maroti Thakre Vs Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Washim and Others

M/S. Kamakshi Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Thr Director Rajubhai Sajanbhai Odedra Vs the Union of India Thr Finance Minister, New Delhi through Its Finance Minister and Ors.

Mahendra S/O Shivcharan Motghare and Others Vs Shri. Nandakumar, I.A.S. Principal/Secretary School Education and Sports Department, Mumbai and Ors.

Satish Madhaorao Kale and Others Vs Mr. Nandkumar, Secretary, School Edu. and Sports Deptt., Mumbai and Others