Disposed

Sandeep Sharadchandra Thakur v. the State of Maharashtra, through Its Govt. Pleader and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Dec 2019CAI/1/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, in a compliance order under a PIL, accepted affidavits from MIDC and declined to further monitor supervisory orders, directing authorities to decide on additional complaints regarding high-ranking officials within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Acceptance of affidavits as compliance; restraint from further monitoring; direction to decide complaints against high-ranking officials within four weeks.

Sandeep Sharadchandra Thakur Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

903-CAIST.4604.2018.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CIVIL APPLICATION (ST) NO. 4604 OF 2018 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 53 OF 2013

¶4

Sandeep Sharadchandra Thakur } Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra } and Ors. } Respondents

¶5

Mr.Sandeep Thakur-petitioner in person.

¶6

Mr.B.V.Samant-AGP for respondent no.1.

¶7

Mr.S.V.Marne for respondent no.2.

¶8

Mr.Shayamli Gadre with Mr.Pradnesh Lokegaonkar I/b. M/s.Little and co. for respondent no.3.

¶9

Dr.Milind Sathe-Senior Advocate I/b. Mr.Sameer Mhatre for respondent no.5.

¶10

Mr.Anil Sakhare-Senior Advocate with Mr.R.V. Bansode for respondent no.6.

¶11

CORAM :- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & R. I. CHAGLA, JJ.

¶12

DATED :- DECEMBER 13, 2019

¶13

P.C. :-

¶14

The affidavits that are filed by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) in pursuance of our earlier order are taken on record. The directions in the order passed on the PIL on the previous occasions are complied with.

¶15

Page 1 of 2

¶16

J.V.SALUNKE,PS

¶17

903-CAIST.4604.2018.doc

¶18

In the event the petitioner is of the view that the real culprits have not been booked, none prevents him from bringing it to the notice of the competent authority that, apart from the officials to whom show cause notice has been issued by respondent no. 3, some high ranking officials, including the Chief Executive Officer at the relevant time should be proceeded against. If such an application is made to the authority competent to proceed against the Chief Executive Officer, let that be decided within a period of four weeks from the date the application/ complaint in writing is received.

¶19

As far as the recovery is concerned, the show cause notice has been issued and the MIDC assures that the recovery measures will be taken to their logical conclusion by passing appropriate orders in accordance with law. There again, we find that if any grievance subsists, particularly that the show cause notice is not addressed to the fifth respondent, the petitioner is not prevented from proceeding against the fifth respondent in accordance with law or bring to the notice of the officials the specific role that he attributes to the fifth respondent.

¶20

We do not think that we should go on monitoring and supervising the action any further. The affidavit tendered today is accepted as compliance of this court’s orders of 13^th September, 2019 and 20^th November, 2019.

¶21

(R.I.CHAGLA, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶22

Page 2 of 2

¶23

J.V.SALUNKE,PS

Sandeep Sharadchandra Thakur v. the State of Maharashtra, through Its Govt. Pleader and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Sharadchandra Thakur v. the State of Maharashtra, through Its Govt. Pleader and Ors.

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

Uday Shetty Vs Union of India and Ors.

Dattatray Prakash Adarkar Vs Union of India

Help Mumbai Foundation and 2 Ors. Vs Chairman, Railway Board, and 5 Ors.

Ashok Vitthal More Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Dept. of Rural Development and Ors.

Vishnu Tukaram Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Dept. of Rural Development and Ors.

Ashok Vitthal More Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Dept. of Rural Development and Ors.