Disposed

Keshav Rama Muddewad v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC11 Sept 2018PIL/92/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL challenged the inaction of authorities regarding audit irregularities. The Court found that a committee inquiry was held and directions issued. The grievance was deemed redressed, and the petition was disposed of with a partial refund of court fees.

What did the court decide?

The Public Interest Litigation is disposed of; Rs. 5,000 deposited as court fees to be refunded to the petitioner; Rs. 5,000 deposited in Relief Fund for State of Kerala.

Keshav Rama Muddewad Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

(1)

¶2

92.17pil

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.92 OF 2017

¶5

Keshav Rama Muddewad,

¶6

Age: 40 years, Occu: Councilor
of Bhokar Municipal Council,
R/o: Bhokar, Tq. Bhokar,
Dist. Nanded..PETITIONER

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32

¶9

2. The Director, Municipal Administration Department, Worli, Mumbai-30

¶10

3. The Collector, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded

¶11

4. The District Administrative Officer, Municipal Council Administration, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded

¶12

5. The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Bhokar, Tq. Bhokar, Dist. Nanded ..RESPONDENTS

¶13

Mr S. C. Bhosale, Advocate for petitioner;

¶14

Mrs A. V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1
to 3;

¶15

Mr R. M. Shinde, Advocate for respondent No.5

¶16

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE &

¶17

 RAVINDRA V. GHUGE,JJ.

¶18

 DATE : 11th SEPTEMBER, 2018

(2)

92.17pil

ORAL ORDER :

The grievance of the petitioner in the

¶23

present public interest litigation is, no action is
initiated by respondent authorities in respect of
audit report for the financial year 2014-2015. The
petitioner submits before this Court that the
petitioner is espousing the cause of the public.

¶24

2.Considering the submission of the
petitioner, Division Bench of this Court, by order
dated 16th August, 2017 converted writ petition
into Public Interest Litigation. The petitioner was
directed to deposit the amount of Rs.10,000/- to
show his bonafide within stipulated period of two
weeks from the date of order i.e. from 18th
January, 2018 and the Division Bench issued notice
to the respondents. Learned A.G.P. was permitted
to file reply.

¶25

3.Learned A.G.P. firstly invited our

¶26

attention to the communication received by the

¶27

office of Government Pleader some time in the month

¶28

of February, 2018. It is stated in the
communication that the petitioner raised his
grievance by way of representation to the Collector
in respect of certain irregularities in the affairs
of the Municipal Corporation. The representation
of the petitioner was not only looked into by the
Collector but the Collector of the District Nanded
taking note of the grievance raised in the
representation constituted committee of three
members i.e. District Administrative Officer,
Nanded, Nayab Tahsildar, Himayatnagar and Civil
Engineer of Nagar Parishad, Umari to conduct an
inquiry. It was submitted before us by
communication in the month of February, 2018 that
the report of the committee is awaited.

¶29

4.Mrs. Gondhlekar, learned A.G.P. invited
our attention to the affidavit in reply filed on
behalf of the Collector, Nanded, through Rajendra
Vasantrao Chavan, District Administrative Officer

¶30

and submitted that three members committee

¶31

(4)

¶32

submitted its report to the District Collector and
the Collector was apprised of the factual position.
The District Collector, Nanded on scrutiny of the
report took immediate steps and issued certain

¶33

orders. The resolution passed by the general body
of the Municipal Council bearing No.5 dated 22nd
December, 2014 was stayed. The Municipal Council
was directed to appoint Superintendent in charge
for the matters of general body meetings. The
presiding authority was directed to sign minutes of
the meeting within seven days of the meeting.
Considering the audit report, District Collector
directed the Chief Officer to comply with the audit
paragraphs of the year 2014-15 and submit to higher
authorities for further action.

¶34

5.Thus, the Collector is also keen to take
appropriate action as and when audit report for the
year 2015-16 is received by him and on verification
of the disbursement of local fund and utilization
of the fund and fact situation reflected in the

¶35

audit report, District Collector may take

¶36

92.17pil (5)

¶37

appropriate action. Thus, what reveals from the

¶38

affidavit in reply filed by the District
Administrative Officer is, all necessary steps are
taken by the District Collector. Considering
grievance raised in the representation of the
petitioner, the District Collector, Nanded looked
into the matter personally and without wasting
time, firstly appointed three member committee,
called the report of the committed and on receipt
of the report of the committee, initiated action by
issuing directions to the various authorities.

¶39

6.In view of these facts, we are of the

¶40

opinion, the purpose to approach this Court by the
petitioner is served and the grievance raised in
the public interest litigation is addressed and
redressed by the District Collector with prompt
action. No purpose could be served by keeping the
public interest litigation pending in view of above
referred facts. The public interest litigation is
accordingly disposed of.

¶41

92.17pil

¶42

7.The petitioner had deposited amount of

¶43

Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) in this Court
to show bnonafides. Registry is directed to refund
the amount of Rs.5000/- (Rs. Five thousand only) to

¶44

the petitioner and the amount of Rs.5000/- (Rs.
Five thousand only) be deposited in Chief

¶45

Minister's Relief Fund for State of Kerala.

¶46

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE) (PRASANNA B. VARALE) JUDGE JUDGE

¶47

Tupe

Keshav Rama Muddewad v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Keshav Rama Muddewad v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Smita Mayank Dhruva (Chaudhari) Vs Union of India through Manager Central Railway and 5 Ors.

Subhash Nagar Nivara Hakka Sangharsh Wsameeti through Mr. S. Bhardwaj and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra through Govt. Pleader , and Ors.

Vikrant Chandrahas Tawde Vs Union of India, through Ministry of Railways and Ors.

Parvez Razak Darvesh vs Dilawar Daud Gaonkhadkar and Ors.

Ankush Ramchandra Chame Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Parag Vijay Mehta and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra , through Chief Secretary, Urban Development Dept. , Mantralaya and Ors.

Shri. Suryakant Kashinath Ghutukade Vs the Chairman / Secretary, Maharashtra Public Service Commission (M.S.) and Ors.

Mohd. Shadab Alam Murtuza Shaikh Vs Renaissance Construction (Janta Sevak Nagar) and 8 Others

Vilas Vishwanath Ugale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dr Jalaluddin Moinuddin Ahmed and Others Vs Jawahar Medical Foundation Dhule through Its Chairman and Others

Vaishali Walmikrao Bagul Vs Prerna Trust Aurangabad through Its Secretary and Others

Ashok Nivruti Jaybhaye Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Vikram Shrirang Jawale and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Manish Dharsibhai Parmar Vs the Additional Commissioner of Income TAX-RANGE-2, Aurangabad