Disposed

Mukesh S/O Jaideoprasad Sahu v. Union of India, through Its Secretary, Ministry of Rural Development Dept. New Delhi and 4 Others

Bombay HC19 Jul 2017PIL/49/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL concerning undeclared advances in Nagpur Municipal Corporation accounts totaling over Rs.21 Crores over two decades, the Court directed the municipal commissioner to clarify the position or file police complaints within four weeks. The Court also ordered both the petitioner and the commissioner to deposit Rs.5,000 each as Amicus remuneration before disposing the matter.

What did the court decide?

Ordered respondent 4 to explain or file police complaints within four weeks; directed petitioner and Commissioner to deposit Rs.5,000 each as Amicus remuneration.

Mukesh S/O Jaideoprasad Sahu Vs Union of India, through… — RTI and Transparency | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

19.7PIL.49.14

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 49 OF 2014. (Mukesh Jaideoprasad Sahu .vs. Union of India & others)

¶5

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

¶6

Mr. P.D. Meghe, Amicus Curiae with Mr. S.S. Dhengale, Advocate for petitioner, Mr. Ambarish M. Joshi, Advocate for respondent no.1, Mrs. K.S. Joshi, A.G.P. for respondent nos.2, 3, 5 & 6. Mrs. S.P. Giradkar, Advocate for respondent no. 4.

¶7

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & ROHIT B. DEO, JJ. DATED : JULY 19, 2017.

¶8

Heard respective Counsel for the parties.

¶9

The learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.6 is seeking time. The learned Amicus appointed by this Court has pointed out that reply filed in P.I.L. by respondent Corporation is evasive. Advances of 22.09 crores are reflected in accounts of Nagpur Municipal Corporation for period from 1991-92 upto 200910. On affidavit Corporation has pointed out adjustment of advances of Rs.46.97 lakhs only during said period. Thus, amount in excess of Rs.21 Crores is still not accounted for.

¶10

This reply affidavit has been filed by Corporation on 9.7.2015 through its Accounts Officer, i.e. more than two years back. In PIL Corporation thereafter has not found it necessary to explain the position.

¶11

Neither petitioner nor the learned Counsel for

¶12

19.7PIL.49.14

¶13

¶14

Corporation is in a position to point out the relevant legal provisions. The learned Amicus submits that it is not very clear whether respondent no.6 has completed audit and any audit report has been filed and audit objections are raised. The learned Counsel for respondent no.6 is seeking time. We find that the respondent no.6 has been added on 7.4.2016, i.e. more than one year back.

¶15

Figure of advances appearing in accounts for a period spread over about 20 years cannot itself be decisive. Necessary documents may have been on record. If the documents are not on record, then the respondent no.4 Municipal Corporation has to immediately proceed further as per law to safeguard interest of Corporation. If the accounts are not returned or then there is temporary misappropriation, necessary police complaint should be filed.

¶16

We find that neither petitioner nor respondent no.4 are serious in the matter.

¶17

The respondent no.6 ought to have filed a definite reply on record by this time.

¶18

We are not inclined to keep the matter pending. We direct the respondent no.4 Municipal Commissioner to take necessary steps and to comply with all queries or then audit objections within four weeks from today. It is also open to him to file police complaints, if any, against the officers found involved in any wrong doing.

¶19

We direct petitioner as also respondent no.4 Commissioner to deposit amount of Rs.5000/- each with the Registrar of this Court within four weeks. The said amount shall be made over to learned Amicus appointed by this Court as his

¶20

19.7PIL.49.14

¶21

¶22

remuneration in the matter.

¶23

With these directions, we dispose of the P.I.L.

¶24

Judge Judge

¶25

Mukesh S/O Jaideoprasad Sahu v. Union of India, through Its Secretary, Ministry of Rural Development Dept. New Delhi and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh S/O Jaideoprasad Sahu v. Union of India, through Its Secretary, Ministry of Rural Development Dept. New Delhi and 4 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

Forum for Fairness in Education and 2 Others Vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Others

Ganesh Shataram Aamle Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Chandrakant Shaligram Bansode Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Hindu Janjagruti Samiti Registered Public Charitable Trust Ashok Devidasrao Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shirish Ramchandra Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bhagvanji Rayani vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Smt. Kalpana Rangnath Inamdar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Siddharth Chabu Khandagale Vs the State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Santosh Bhaulal Rahangdale Vs Premlal Meshram, Secretart Sarswati Edu.Soty. and Ors.

Gaurishankar Jaipal Patle Vs Premlal Meshram,Secretary,Saraswati Education Society ,Gondia and Anor.

S.J.Dhanurkar and 20 Others Vs Datta Prabhu Shikshan Sanstha Thr. Its Secty. and Ors.

Jai Bhavani Fisheries Co-Operative Society Ltd. Singaon, Thr Vilas Kautikrao Rokade Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary of Department of Fisheries and Animal Husbandry, Mumbai and or

Charandas Sheshrao Sapkal and Others Vs Deputy Conservator of Forest, Wardha Division, Wardha and Another

Mukund S/O Nilkanthrao Fopse Vs Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur