In this PIL regarding alleged misappropriation of public funds by a Municipal Council, the High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad dismissed the petition due to insufficient material to substitute the opinion of executive officers.
The Public Interest Litigation was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
921pil73o14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 73 OF 2014
SUHAS MUKUND SATHE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
None for Petitioner.
AGP for Respondents/ State : Mr.S.G.Karlekar. Advocate for Respondent 4 : Mr.Milind Patil.
CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI AND
MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE :- 27th July, 2017
P.C.:
1 The Petitioner and his Advocate, both are absent. As this is
Public Interest Litigation, we would not be justified in dismissing it. However, we find that the Petitioner has not only impleaded the statutory authorities, but ex-minister as party Respondents. The Petitioner says that the working of Respondent No.4/ Municipal Council was not satisfactory. There was misappropriation allegedly of public money. There was hue and cry, but no action has been taken against Respondent No.6/ President. He wants the President to be proceeded against under Section 55-A of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965.
2 We do not think that materials and relied upon in this petition
2
921pil73o14
are enough for us so as to substitute our opinion with that of the Collector
and other officers. The Public Interest Litigation is, therefore, dismissed.
(MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
( S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. )
kps
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the materials and arguments presented were sufficient to substitute the opinion of the Collector and other officers.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Suhas Mukund Sathe
The State of Maharashtra and Others
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI
MANGESH S. PATIL
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
