Disposed

Madhukar Muralidhar Nazare v. State of Maharashtra through Gp and Anr.

Bombay HC21 Nov 2018PIL/34/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a PIL regarding mismanagement in Pashchim Maharashtra Devasthan Samiti temples. It directed the petitioner to file representations to the Charity Commissioner for specific issues, retaining jurisdiction over filed petitions.

What did the court decide?

None; disposed of case with direction to file representation to Charity Commissioner for specific issues.

Madhukar Muralidhar Nazare Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

pil 34.17.doc

¶2

Urmila Ingale

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 34 OF 2017

¶6

Madhukar Muralidhar Nazare .. Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr. .. Respondents

¶7

Mr.Virendra Ichalkaranjikar I/b Mr.Sanjiv Punalekar, for the Petitioner.

¶8

Mr. Rajan Pawar, AGP for Respondents No. 1 & 2 - State.

¶9

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL, CHIEF JUSTICE & M.S.KARNIK, J.

¶10

DATE : 21^st NOVEMBER, 2018

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

. The Petitioner submits that there is mismanagement

¶13

in the temples/trusts governed by the Pashchim Maharashtra Devasthan Samiti which runs several temples/trusts including Mahalaxmi temple and Jyotiba temple. Learned Counsel submits that the present Petitioner has filed two more Petitions in respect of temples at Pandharpur and Tuljapur. This Court has passed certain directions in those Petitions.

¶14

1/3

¶15

pil 34.17.doc

¶16

The general grievance of the Petitioner according to the learned Counsel is that the law and judicial department of the State is not attentive enough to look into the allegations as and when brought to the notice of the office of Law Secretary/State Government in respect of mismanagement of the temples wherein the nominated committee boards are functioning. The Petitioner expects the Charity Commissioner of the State to be proactive and look into the said issues and formulate appropriate policy by issuing necessary directions in accordance with law. As administrative steps are not taken diligently, persons like the Petitioner who desire to raise issues in public interest have to rush to this Court.

¶17

We have perused the record placed before the Court. Considered the submissions advanced. The Petitioner has already filed two more Petitions which are pending in this Court. However, in case specific incidents are to be brought to the notice of the Charity Commissioner of the concerned region, the Petitioner is at liberty to file comprehensive representation in

¶18

2/3

¶19

pil 34.17.doc

¶20

respect of specific issue to the Charity Commissioner. In case the Petitioner files such representation before the Charity Commissioner, the Charity Commissioner after perusal of the same and after calling for necessary information is free to take appropriate steps.

¶21

The Public Interest Litigation is disposed of.

¶22

It is made clear that we have not expressed any

¶23

opinion on the issues raised in the PIL.

¶24

(M.S.KARNIK, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶25

3/3

Madhukar Muralidhar Nazare v. State of Maharashtra through Gp and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhukar Muralidhar Nazare v. State of Maharashtra through Gp and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Suresh Annappa Gadge Vs the Renuka Sugars Ltd, Ganganagar, Ichalkaranji and Ors.

Shri. Shirish Chimanrao Bhujbal Vs Pune Municipal Corporation, and Anr.

Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage through Mrs Shveta Kothavale Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Urban Land Development Dept. and Anr.

Shri. Suresh Annappa Gadge Vs the Renuka Sugars Ltd, Ganganagar, Ichalkaranji and Ors.

Mr. Sapan Shrivastava and Anr. Vs Collector Thane and Ors.

Vinod Amolakchand Gandhi Vs Dilip Mansukhlal Gandhi and Others

Santosh Vitthal Purhe and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sagar Navnath Tanpure and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors. Vs Shri. Suhas Shreepad Atre and Anr.

Shri. Suresh Annappa Gadge Vs the Renuka Sugars Ltd, Ganganagar, Ichalkaranji and Ors.

Shri. Shirish Chimanrao Bhujbal Vs Pune Municipal Corporation, and Anr.

Shri. Sachin Tanaji Jadhav Vs M/S. P.S.K. Infrastructure and Projects Ltd. and Ors.

Madhukar Muralidhar Nazare Vs State of Maharashtra through Gp and Anr.

Vinaychand M. Shah Vs the Administrator of Daman and Diu and Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Ors.