Disposed

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

Bombay HC14 Sept 2017PIL/16/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A PIL filed alleging misuse of public funds and illegal allotment of plots under the Gharkul Indira Aavas Yojana by a Sarpanch. The court amended the parties and directed the Zilla Parishad CEO to treat the petition as a complaint and decide it on merits.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondent no. 5 to treat the PIL as a complaint and dispose of it on merits.

Maruti Parshuram Shedge Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

PIL 16-2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 16 OF 2017

¶4

Maruti Parshuram Shedge .. Petitioner V/s

¶5

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶6

.. Respondents

¶7

Mr. Ravi P. Kadam for the petitioner.

¶8

Mr. A.B. Vagyani, Government Pleader with Mr. V.N. Sagare, AGP for the State.

¶9

Mr. Siddhesh Pilankar with Mr. Uday Warunjikar for respondent nos.3 and 5.

¶10

CORAM: DR. MANJULA CHELLUR, CJ. & N.M. JAMDAR, J.

¶11

DATE : 14^th SEPTEMBER 2017

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

The present public interest litigation is filed complaining certain illegalities committed by respondent no.4 – Sarpanch, so far as the housing scheme in village Padali in the district of Satara.

¶14

According to the petitioner, the public funds are misused by respondent no.4 and other officials so far as implementation of scheme of Gharkul Indira Aavas Yojana in the Gramsabha of Bharatgav village. According to him, respondent no.4 has allotted a plot in Gat No.212 at Bharatgav to a person who is not entitled to get the said land. According to him, the beneficiary by name Smt.

1 of 2

ABS

PIL 16-2017

Kalavati D. Shelar is a resident of Padali village and owns a double storyed house in Padali village and, therefore, she is not entitled to claim a plot in Bharatgav, and in spite of entire material being within the knowledge of respondent no.4, he has allotted a plot in her favour in Gat No.212 and similarly in Gat No.55 also, such allotment was done.

¶19

Apparently respondent no.5 – Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Satara, was not made a party till the Court took note of the same and directed the petitioner to amend the cause title. Now respondent no.5 is impleaded as an additional respondent. If the respondent no.5 has already taken note of the situation, well and good. If the respondent no.5 has not taken any action on the complaint of the petitioner, we direct him to treat this PIL as a complaint and dispose of the same in accordance with the procedure contemplated on its own merits.

¶20

With the above directions, we dispose of the PIL.

¶21

(N.M. JAMDAR, J.) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶22

2 of 2

¶23

ABS

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Panshet Purgrast Samittee Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anil S/O Sharadchandra Mardikar Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Ministry of Rural Development and Water, Mumbai and Others

Lalsing S/O. Udaypalsing Thakur Vs National Highway Authority of India, through Its Project Officer and Others

Courts on Its Own Motion Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Others

Dnyaneshwar Vishwanath Jadhav Vs Sharad Dattatraya Jadhav and Ors.

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

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.

Shri. Manohar Vishnu Bhalekar and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Larsen and Toubro Limited Vs Shri. Pandurang Patil .

Shri. Dnyanu Naru Mali Alias Gore Karta-Huf (Decd) through His Son Shri Kashinath D. Gore and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra through Government Pleader and Ors.

Mrs. S.G.P. Barnes Vs Shri Naik and 2 Ors.

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

Association for Aiding Justice through Its Authrized Signatory Vs Union of India and Anr.