Disposed

Ganesh Harishchandra Gole v. State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Jan 2019PIL/53/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Bombay in this PIL addressed an allegation of defalcation by a Zilla Parishad Member. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation and directed the Chief Executive Officer, Satara, to act on prior communications, while clarifying that the court did not express any opinion on the merits before disposing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to file comprehensive representation; Chief Executive Officer, Satara directed to look into matter as per Commissioner's directions if steps not yet taken.

Ganesh Harishchandra Gole Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

PIL 53.15.doc

¶2

¶3

JPP

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 53 OF 2015

¶6

Ganesh Harishchandra Gole … Petitioner.

¶7

V/s.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

¶9

... Respondents.

¶10

Mr. A.L. Gore for the Petitioner.

¶11

Mr. P.P. Kakade, AGP for the Respondents 1,2,5 and 6.

¶12

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL,C.J. & N.M. JAMDAR, J.

¶13

DATE : 24 JANUARY, 2019.

¶14

P.C. :-

¶15

The Petitioner is a retired Police Inspector living in the Village Bhose, District – Satara. The Petitioner has approached this Court raising an issue of alleged defalcation of money, mismanagement and illegality committed by Mr. Pralhad Maruti Bhillare, the then Member of the Zilla Parishad, Satara.

¶16

PIL 53.15.doc

¶17

¶18

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner had filed the representation to various authorities. The learned Counsel has also placed reliance on the communications dated 3 February 2014 and 30 June 2014 made by the Divisional Commissioner Office, Pune to the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Satara. The learned Counsel submitted inspite of such communications by the Higher Authority, the Chief Executive Officer has not taken any steps. He also submitted that there is a query from the State Government in respect of the allegations made against Mr. Pralhad Maruti Bhillare.

¶19

This Petition is pending since last 4 to 5 years. Once the Petition is came to be dismissed for non-prosecution and then restored.

¶20

In the facts of the present case we are inclined to pass the following order :-

¶21

(a) The Petitioner is at liberty to file a comprehensive representation to the Chief Executive Officer, Satara within three months from today.

¶22

(b) In case the Chief Executive Officer, Satara has failed to look into the communication made by the Commissioner, Pune dated 3 February 2014, then we direct the Chief Executive

¶23

PIL 53.15.doc

¶24

¶25

Officer, Satara to look into the matter as per the directions issued by the Commissioner, Pune.

¶26

(c) In case the Chief Executive Officer has already taken steps, then appropriate intimation be given of the same to the Higher Authorities.

¶27

(d) In case the Chief Executive Officer, Satara decides to take necessary steps in accordance with law in respect of the allegations made against Mr. Pralhad Maruti Bhillare, then the same be taken by following principles of natural justice and in consonance with the provisions of law.

¶28

(e) The Chief Executive Officer shall complete this exercise as expeditiously as possible.

¶29

It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion upon the merits of the Petition.

¶30

The Public Interest Litigation stands disposed of in the

¶31

above terms.

¶32

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶33

N.M. JAMDAR, J.

Ganesh Harishchandra Gole v. State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh Harishchandra Gole v. State of Maharashtra through the Secretary 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

Babasaheb Balbhim Sanap Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay Lawyers Association Vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Ahmad M. Abdi Vs State of Maharashtra and 9 Ors.

Mr. Sajjad Moinuddin Sheikh Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary and Ors.

Syed Zaker Syed Hussain Vs the Union of India and Others

Govind Babanrao Yewle Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mahesh Sitaram Dhannawat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Smt. Preeti S/O Arun Joseph and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Mr. Ramchandra Laxminarayan Kasat and Anr. Vs the Estate Officer, Central Railway Pune and Anr.

Mr. Sajjad Moinuddin Sheikh Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary and Ors.

Shubham Civil Projects Pvt. Ltd. Thru Managing Director, Shri. Vinay K Badera Vs the Principal Secretary,Public Works Development Dept. and Ors.

Ganesh Harishchandra Gole Vs State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Citizen Forum for Sanctity in Educational System, through Member, Mr. Sanjay Mukund Kelkar Vs Member Secretary, Aicte and Ors.

Mumbai Taxi/Auto Rickshaw Mens Sangharsh Association Thru Its Chairman, Vice Chairman and Secty. Vs the Principal Secty. (Parivahan Iv) Dept. of Transport and Ors.