The High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench Aurangabad disposed of PIL No. 67 of 2017 regarding inquiry into misappropriation in rural works. Since the inquiry had already been initiated, the court held further proceedings unnecessary.
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 )
pil67.17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 67 OF 2017
GOVIND KESHAV NIKAM AND ANOTHER VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Mr.T.M. Venjane, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.S.B. Yawalkar, AGP for respondent/State.
Mr.M.P. Kale h/f. Mr. E.P. Sawant, Advocate for
respondent Nos.3 and 6.
Mr.S.S. Manale, Advocate for respondent Nos. 4 & 5.
CORAM : S.S.SHINDE &
S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.
DATED :30.01.2018
P.C. :-
1.This Public Interest Litigation is filed with
following prayers :-
B)Be pleased to direct the respondent No.2
Ld. Collector, Aurangabad to initiate inquiry
against the responsible Gramseak, Sarpanch,
Extension Officer and Rozgar Sevak, in respect
of misappropriation done by them, during the
period from 2011 to 2015, in the works of roads,
cement dams, cement drainages of village Vasadi,
Tq. Kannad, Dist. Aurangabad, under the
Maharashtra Gramin Rojgar Hami Yojana Scheme.
C)Be pleased to direct the respondent No.2
Ld. Collector, Aurangabad to decide the
representation dtd.02.12.2016 made by the
present petitioners within some stipulated
period.”
2.Learned AGP appearing for the respondent/State,
on instructions, submits that already inquiry has been
initiated. Therefore, the grievance raised in prayer
clause (B) stands redressed. Insofar as prayer clause
(C) is concerned, since the inquiry has been initiated,
said representation stands addressed by the respondents.
3.In that view of the matter, in our opinion,
further continuation of proceeding in this Public
Interest Litigation is not necessary. Hence, this Public
Interest Litigation stands disposed of. We hope and
expect that the inquiry would be expedited and the same
would be taken to a logical end in accordance with law.
[S.M.GAVHANE,J.] [S.S.SHINDE,J.]
snk/2018/JAN18/ pil67.17
Govind Keshav Nikam
The State of Maharashtra
S.S. Shinde
S.M. Gavhane
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