Disposed

Santosh Hiralal Choudhari Alias Saratale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC29 Mar 2017PIL/142/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL regarding financial irregularities in village administration, the Court found that action had been taken against responsible officials. The co-respondent tendered an unconditional apology for procedural lapses in filing an affidavit. The PIL was disposed of as its purpose was served.

What did the court decide?

PIL disposed of; pending civil applications disposed of; Rs. 10,000 transferred to Advocates' Association and balance refunded.

Santosh Hiralal Choudhari Alias Saratale Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

PIL142-2016.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 142 OF 2016
WITH CA/4168/2017 IN PIL/142/2016

¶4

SANTOSH HIRALAL CHOUDHARI ALIAS SARATALE

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶7

...

¶8

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Agrawal Sumit S.
GP for Respondents: Mr. A. B. Girase

¶9

Advocate for Respondents 2,3&4 : Mr. Dilip Bankar Patil
Advocate for Respondent No.5 : Mr. K. A. Kale
Advocate for Respondent No.6 : Mr. B. S. Deshmukh

¶10

CORAM: R. M. BORDE
K. L. WADANE, JJ.
 DATE:
29th March, 2017

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

1. The petitioner is seeking directions to
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to take action against

¶13

respondent No.6and others for committing financial
irregularities.

¶14

2. It is the contention of the petitioner that in
pursuance to the complaint lodged by the Sarpanch of
village Banoti, Taluka Soegaon on 7/10th September,

¶15

2012, enquiry was initiated against the village
Development Officer and then Upsarpanh in respect of

¶16

the financial irregularities as well as preparation of
false record. The enquiry was conducted by the

¶17

1/8

¶18

PIL142-2016.odt

¶19

Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of Block
Development Officer. Report of enquiry was submitted by

¶20

the Block Development Officer in December, 2012. The
Committee recorded conclusion to the effect that
Upsarpanch and Village Development Officer are
responsible for committing certain irregularities. The

¶21

Committee has also drawn conclusion in respect of
financial irregularities of an amount Rs.4,3,839/- and
recommended recovery of the said amount, allegedly
misappropriated by the concerned. The petitioner
contends that though the Village Development Officer
and then Upsarpanch were found to be responsible for
committing financial irregularities, no steps have been
taken against them.

¶22

3. In pursuance to the notice issued by the Court,
an affidavit in reply has been presented by the Deputy
Chief Executive Officer (Panchayat), Zilla Parishad,
Aurangabad under the directions of respondent No.1. It
is recorded in the affidavit that after receipt of
complaint on 10.09.2012, the Office of respondent No.3-
Deputy Chief Executive Officer(Panchayat) has issued

¶23

directions to respondent No.4 (Block Development
Officer) to conduct enquiry and submit report. In

¶24

2/8

¶25

PIL142-2016.odt

¶26

pursuance to the directions issued by the office of
respondent no.3, enquiry has been conducted by
respondent No.4 and report has been submitted to the
office of respondent no.3 on 30.12.2012.

¶27

4. It is further stated that in the meanwhile, the
complainant had withdrawn the complaint by issuing
letter dated 21.09.2012. However, considering the
report tendered by the Enquiry Oficer (BDO), Village
Development Officer Shri V. D. Bidkar was found
responsible for the irregularities and as such he was
issued show cause notice on 12.06.2013. On receipt of
explanation, the department took a decision to
initiate departmental enquiry against him, which was
ordered by communication dated 09.10.2013. Charge-
sheet has been tendered against the Village Development
Officer on 03.04.2014. It is stated that after
conclusion of departmental enquiry, since the Village
Development Officer was found responsible for the
irregularities, punishment of stoppage of three
increments permanently has been imposed.

¶28

5. So far as allegations against the Sarpanch and
Upsarpanch are concerned, respondent No.3 issued show

¶29

3/8

¶30

PIL142-2016.odt

¶31

cause notice on 06.01.2016 to the then Sarpanch and
Upsarpanch of Village Banoti and after receipt of

¶32

explanations from the concerned and after calling
report from the Block Development Officer, Panchayat

¶33

Samiti Soegaon, directions came to be issued by the
Divisional Commissioner to the Chief Executive Officer

¶34

for initiating enquiry under section 39(1) of the
Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958. It is also

¶35

stated in the Affidavit that Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, is called upon to submit report for

¶36

taking further action. The Divisional Commissioner,

¶37

vide order dated 02.01.2017, granted permission to
enquire into the matter under section 39(1) of the

¶38

Maharashtra village Panchayats Act, 1958. It is also
stated that criminal prosecution has been initiated

¶39

against the then Sarpanch and Upsarpanch and others
who are found responsible for misappropriation of an

¶40

amount of Rs.9,84,748/-. First information report has
been lodged by the Extension Officer, Panchayat Samiti

¶41

with the Police Station Soegaon on 24.03.2017. It is
thus clear that in pursuance to the complaint lodged by

¶42

the then Sarpanch of village Bonoti, appropriate
steps have been taken and even criminal prosecution has

¶43

4/8

¶44

PIL142-2016.odt

¶45

also been initiated against the concerned who are found

¶46

to be involved in the financial irregularities. It

¶47

also worthwhile to note that even after withdrawal of
the complaint by the Complainant- Sarpanch, the

¶48

respondents proceeded to initiate action against those
who are found responsible for the misappropriation.

¶49

6. Considering these aspects, we are of the view
that purpose of presentation of the instant P.I.L. is
served since the steps have been taken against those
who are found responsible for committing irregularities
/misappropriation.

¶50

7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6
contends that the instant PIL is presented with

¶51

malafide intention and it is not a bona-fide

¶52

litigation. It is contended that the petitioner is a
person who has been enrolled as a Labour under the
MNREGA Scheme and in all probability, he does not have

¶53

financial capacity to prosecute the litigation and
deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/- as directed by this

¶54

Court on 16th November, 2016. It is suggested by
respondent no.6 that the petitioner is being used as a
front-man by the political rivals of respondent no.6.

¶55

5/8

¶56

It is submitted that the present P.I.L. is filed with a
view to frustrate an attempt of respondent No.6 to
secure dealership of selling the petroleum products
offered by a Petroleum company. It is contended that
instant PIL is presented in the month of September,
2016 and complaint came to be lodged with the Petroleum
Company together with copy of the PIL informing the
Petroleum Company that respondent no.6 is likely to
face criminal prosecution. However, the respondent
No.6 has not presented on record copy of the complaint
lodged with the Petroleum Company. Unsubstantiated
contention raised in this regard therefore, cannot be
considered. A doubt is raised as regards bonafides of
the petitioner in presenting the instant P.I.L.

¶57

8. This Court, by order dated 7th March, 2017,
directed respondent no.1 to explain as to why
authorization was issued to respondent no.3 to file
affidavit when there was a prayer made by the
petitioner seeking directions to respondent no.1 to
take action against respondent no.3. Admittedly,
respondent no.3 is an officer of the local authority
i.e. Zilla Parishad and normally he should not have
been authorized to file affidavit on behalf of the

¶58

6/8

¶59

PIL142-2016.odt

¶60

State. It appears that since the issue pertains to
the Zilla Parishad, direction appears to have been
issued by the State to respondent no.3 to look into
the matter.

¶61

9. As has been stated above, the State Government
is not expected to issue directions to the local
authority, more particularly, an officer functioning in
the local authority, against whom direction is sought
in the PIL, to file affidavit on behalf of the State
Government. An affidavit has seen presented by the
Principal Secretary, expressing regret and he has
tendered unconditional apology for the lapse. We
accept the unconditional apology tendered on behalf
respondent no.1.

¶62

10. For the reasons recorded above, P.I.L. stands
disposed of.

¶63

11. In view of disposal of the P.I.L., pending Civil
applications do not survive and stand disposed of.

¶64

12. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
on instructions, assures to deposit an amount of
Rs.10,000/- with the Library Committee of the

¶65

7/8

¶66

PIL142-2016.odt Advocates' Association. In view of the statement made, the amount of Rs.10,000/-, out of total amount of Rs.50,000/- deposited by the petitioner in pursuance to the directions dated 16th November, 2016, shall be transferred to the account of Library Committee of the Advocates' Association, High Court at Aurangabad. Balance amount of Rs.40,000/- shall be refunded to the petitioner.

¶67

(K. L. WADANE, J.) (R. M. BORDE, J. )

¶68

JPC

¶69

8/8

Santosh Hiralal Choudhari Alias Saratale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Hiralal Choudhari Alias Saratale 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

Kailash Chhagan Chaudhari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

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

Vitthal Annarao Hajgude and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Balasaheb Shivajirao Mhaske Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Gautam Tatyarao Shejul Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sardar Harwindersingh S/O Preetamsingh Dhunna Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development Department, Mumbai and 3

Indian Christian United Brigade Jalna through Its District President Rahul Samson Shinde Vs the Union of India and Others

Ashok Champalal Bhutada and Another 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

Balaji Sand Suppliers through Its Proprietor Satish Dnyandev Waghole Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Amol Iresh Annamwar Vs Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee Aurangabad through Its Member Secretary and Others

Savita Jyotiram Kore Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others