Disposed

Shivkumar Vitthal Gulve and Anr. v. the State of Maharshtra and Ors.

Bombay HC26 Sept 2019PIL/36/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Bench at Aurangabad disposed of PIL PIL 36/11 regarding alleged misappropriation of funds and false measurements in water supply works at village Kharda. The Court terminated proceedings noting works were completed, payments were legitimate, and the Grampanchayat recorded satisfaction of implementation in 2017. No costs awarded.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings terminated noting contractor completed works, payments were not false, and Grampanchayat recorded satisfaction of scheme implementation.

Shivkumar Vitthal Gulve and Anr. Vs the State… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

PIL 36/11

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

3 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.36 OF 2011

¶5

SHIVKUMAR VITTHAL GULVE AND ANOTHER
VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARSHTRA AND OTHERS

¶7

...

¶8

Advocate for Petitioners : Shri Ajinkya Kale h/f Shri
Talekar S.B.

¶9

AGP for Respondent no.1: Shri P.S. Patil
Advocate for Respondent nos.2 to 4 : Shri S.T. Shelke
Advocate for Respondent no.9 : Shri V.S. Bedre
Respondent nos.5,7,8,10 & 11 served.

¶10

CORAM: PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, CJ & R.G. AVACHAT, J.

¶11

DATE: 26.09.2019

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

1] Issue raised in the public interest litigation concerns works executed for water supply at village Kharda Tq.Jamkhed Dist.Ahmednagar.

¶14

2] The grievance in the petition is that funds were

¶15

misappropriated and the works were not completed. Prayer made is to call for the records and in particular the measurements concerning the works

¶16

entered in the record in respect of payments made to the Contractor and pass suitable directions.

¶17

PIL 36/11

¶18

- 2 -

¶19

3] This Court was of the opinion that a Commission be directed

¶20

to be executed and submit a report to the Court after verifying facts at site. This was as per order dated 9.8.2012.

¶21

4] Two Lawyers having Degree and Diploma in Engineering as also one Mr.V.M. Patil, Executive Engineer, was the inspecting Committee which had to visit the site.

¶22

5] The Committee submitted its report on 24.9.2012. The report of the Committee is that the work has been executed, but adequate water is

¶23

not being supplied and the reason thereof is that the Irrigation Tank was constructed in village Khairi some times in the year 1979-80. There was a well situated up-stream of the said Irrigation Tank and the said well constituted the principal source of water for the supply scheme. The diameter of the well was 9 meters and depth was 8 meters. When the Committee inspected, water level was 1.20 meters in the well. An electric pump of 7.5 HP was fitted by the side of the well to lift the water. Sans any scientific material but based upon the practical knowledge of the Committee and information given by the villagers, the Committee opined that rate of influx of water in the well of approximately three litres per second was necessary. The Committee opined that less water from the

¶24

PIL 36/11

¶25

- 3 -

¶26

underground channels was percolating in the well due to the reason there was hard rock and probably the location of the well was not properly identified.

¶27

6] Now, this issue whether the well was sunk at the correct place or a wrong place would lead this Court into unchartered territories. Be that as it may, the report establishes that the grievance of the petitioner that without works being executed payments were released and measurement books were also false is incorrect.

¶28

7] We terminate the proceedings in the petition noting that the Contractor completed the works and operated the water supply scheme for a year. The Grampanchayat has since taken over the distribution of the water and as per Resolution No.20 at the meeting held on 15.8.2017 has recorded satisfaction of the implementation of the scheme.

¶29

8] File be consigned to the record. No costs.

¶30

(R.G. AVACHAT, J.) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶31

ndk/c269194.doc

Shivkumar Vitthal Gulve and Anr. v. the State of Maharshtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivkumar Vitthal Gulve and Anr. v. the State of Maharshtra 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

Krishna Kumar Agarwal Vs the Ministry of Environment and Forest, through Its Secretary, Govt. of India, New Delhi and Others

Courts on Its Own Motion Vs State of Maharashtra, in the Ministry of Revenue and Forest, through Its Secretary, Mumbai and Othe

Krishna Kumar Agrawal Vs Union of India, Thr. Ministry of Environment, New Delhi and Others

Dinesh Manohar Shedame Vs Union of India, through Its Secretary, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi and Others

Mirza Imran Ahemad Beg Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Deelip Tukaram Dhotre Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mohammad Mushiroddin Mohd. Gausoddin Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Amar Asaram Pawar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Chandrakant Prabhuappa Dhanshette Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Vasudeo Murlidhar Parley Vs the State of Mah

Vasudeo Murlidhar Parley Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Federation of All Lminority Educational Organization (Fame) Thr Zonal Chairman Vs the Union of India Thr Principal Secretary and Ors.

Digambar Rajaram Parodwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sakhu Maruti Bite Vs the State of Maha and Ors.