Disposed

Keshav Ramrao Bangar and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC20 Aug 2019PIL/97/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad disposed of four PILs concerning alleged mismanagement and fund misuse by a beneficiary society in a drought relief cattle camp scheme. The court directed the Collector to initiate a prima facie enquiry, stop fund disbursements, and file an action-taken report within ten weeks, while directing petitioners to deposit Rs. 20,000 as bona fide

What did the court decide?

Directions to the Collector Beed to conduct an enquiry into the irregularities, stop fund disbursement to the society within one week if satisfied, submit an action-taken report within ten weeks, and

Keshav Ramrao Bangar and Another Vs the State… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

97.19PIL

¶2

( 1 )

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.97 OF 2019
WITH
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.98 OF 2019
WITH
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.99 OF 2019
WITH
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.100 OF 2019

¶5

1. Keshav S/o Ramrao Bangar
Age: 38 years, Occu:Agriculture,
And Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Karhevadgaon
R/o Karhevadgaon, Tq.Ashti,
Dist. Beed.

¶6

2. Vilas S/o Gahininath Waybhase Age: 43 years, Occu.Service, R/o Chinchewadi, Tq.Ashti, Dist. Beed. PETITIONERS

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1. The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.

¶9

2. The Collector, Beed, District Beed.

¶10

3. The Tahasildar Patoda, Tq. Patoda, Dist.Beed.

¶11

( 2 ) 97.19PIL

¶12

4. Suryabhan Baba Samajik Sanstha, Karhewadi
Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed.
Though its President,
Mr.Ramdas S/o Suryabhan Kahde,
Age: Major, Occu:Business,
R/o Karhewadi, Tq.Ashti,
Dist.Beed.RESPONDENTS

¶13

Mr V.D.Salunke, Advocate for the petitioners;
Smt G.L.Deshpande, A.G.P. for respondent- State;

¶14

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE &

¶15

R.G. AVACHAT, JJ.

¶16

DATED :20th AUGUST, 2019

¶17

ORAL ORDER:

¶18

These four public interest litigations are filed

¶19

raising a common cause. As such, these four petitions
are taken up together for hearing and disposal with
consent of Mr. Salunke, learned Counsel appearing for the

¶20

petitioners and the learned A.G.P. appearing for
respondent Nos.1,2 and 3.

¶21

2. Mr Salunke, learned Counsel by inviting our

¶22

attention to the documents placed on record, submitted

¶23

that respondent No.4-Society namely, Suryabhan Baba
Samajik Sanstha, Karhewadi was selected as a beneficiary
Society under the State Government Scheme floated under
Government Resolution dated 25th January, 2019 with an
aim for establishing the cattle camps.

¶24

3. This decision was taken by the State Government

¶25

on the backdrop of a serious drought situation in many
districts of State of Maharashtra. It is stated that as
per the earlier decision of the State Government 26
districts of State of Maharashtra, 151 talukas, 268
Revenue Circles and 931 villages are declared as the
areas facing either drought situation or drought like
situation.

¶26

4. Considering all this fact situation, State

¶27

Government in its wisdom thought it fit to permit certain
agencies to open cattle camps so as to provide fodder and
water to the animals. Copy of the Government Resolution

¶28

dated 25th January, 2019 placed on record at Exhibit-A

¶29

shows that it deals with prerequisites, such as
conditions for opening cattle camps, modalities of

¶30

supervision and supply of fodder. Broadly it can be said
that this Government Resolution takes care of the
infrastructural facilities, such as sheds for the
cattles, separate sheds for ailing cattles, so that
other healthy cattles are not subjected to the health
hazards.

¶31

5. Theperiodicalinspectionoffodder,

¶32

registration of the cattles, upkeeping of the data,
regular visits to these cattle camps by the Revenue
authorities at various levels such as, Animal Husbandry
Development Officer (Extension),Panchayat Samiti, Block
Development Officer and Tahsildar. It also refers to the
visit by other officers, such like Sub Divisional
Officer, District Animal Husbandry Commissioner,
Additional Commissioner, District Animal Husbandry

¶33

Officer, Assistant Commissioner. This refers to the

¶34

fortnight visit in co-ordination by these Officers. It
also refers to the modalities of the disbursements of
funds.

¶35

6. It is the submission of Mr. Salunke, learned

¶36

Counsel for the petitioners, that respondent No.4 by
taking benefit of the Government Scheme though
established cattle camps at various places, subsequently
respondent No.4 used these cattle camps for its personal
gain by either not maintaining record properly or by mis-
representation of the facts to the authorities concerned.
It is also the submission of Mr. Salunke, learned
Counsel that complaints were submitted to various
officers of the State Government at Block level and
District level.

¶37

7. Our attention was invited to one of the orders

¶38

passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Patoda, Taluka

¶39

Patoda, District Beed i.e order dated 10th May, 2019
whereby on receiving the complaints, the Sub Divisional
Officer found various irregularities in the said cattle
camps maintained by respondent No.4 at the place namely,
Sawargaon Ghat, Taluka Patoda, Dist. Beed. An exercise
of enquiry was undertaken by the officer concerned. The
Sub Divisional Officer found that there were various
irregularities, as such, by the order dated 10th May,
2019 fine was imposed on respondent No.4 on various
heads. The Sub Divisional Officer in the very order
further directed that unless and until the penalty / fine
is deposited, no further disbursement be granted in
favour of respondent No.4 - Society.

¶40

8. Mr Salunke, learned Counsel for the petitioners

¶41

invited our attention to the representation submitted to
the Collector, Beed, dated 3rd July, 2019 to submit
that, as there are various irregularities and some
irregularities also lead to the act of causing loss to

¶42

the public exchequer, the District Collector, Beed was
expected to take further steps either in the nature of
enquiry or certain punitive action on his satisfaction
against the erring society.

¶43

9. It is further submitted by Mr Salunke, learned

¶44

Counsel that in spite of such representation submitted to the Collector and copies being supplied to either in the office of the Honourable Chief Minister or other concerned Ministers as well to the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, no further steps are taken and the petitioners apprehend that if there is delay in action, respondent No. 4 may receive further funds and this would be again loss to the public exchequer. Such a loss to public exchequer be stopped at the earliest and with this bona fide intention, the petitioners are before this Court is the submission of Mr Salunke, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners.

¶45

10. On a specific query put to the learned Counsel

¶46

for the petitioners as to whether the petitioners are ready and willing to deposit certain amount to show their bona fides, he submitted that petitioner No.1 is Sarpanch and is agriculturist, whereas petitioner No. 2 is in service but also active in social work and as the cause of public is being raised, the petitioners be permitted to deposit reasonable amount in this Court to show their bona fides.

¶47

11.On the backdrop of the submissions of

¶48

Mr. Salunke, learned Counsel for the petitioners referred
by us above and on perusal of the documents placed on
record, we are of the opinion that these Public Interest
Litigations can be disposed of at the admission stage by
issuing directions to respondents authorities and more
particularly to the Collector, Beed.

¶49

12. In our opinion, these directions to the

¶50

Collector, Beed would meet the ends of justice and at
the same time may not cause any prejudice to respondent
No.4 as in our directions, we propose to direct the

¶51

Collector to grant an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioners and respondent No.4.

¶52

13.Considering the grievance raised in the

¶53

petitions namely, mis-management and mis-representation
in the scheme floated by the State Government with a
laudable object, we direct respondent No.2 - the
Collector Beed to immediately take cognizance of the
representation submitted to him on 3rd July, 2019.

¶54

14.The Collector Beed, may undertake an exercise
of enquiry. For such an exercise of enquiry he may seek
reports from his sub-ordinate Officers, such as, Sub
Divisional Officer, Tahsildar, Village Development
Officer and Animal Husbandry Officers of Zilla Parishad.
The Collector, Beed to conclude the exercise of enquiry

¶55

( 10 ) 97.19PIL

¶56

including seeking reports from sub-ordinates within
three weeks.

¶57

15.The Collector Beed, if is prima-facie satisfied
on receiving report, then, he may immediately pass the
orders for stopping of disbursement of funds to
respondent No.4.

¶58

16.While conducting enquiry and an exercise of
concluding enquiry within three weeks on receiving
report, the Collector to grant opportunity of hearing to
respondent No.4. The hearing of respondent No.4 -
Society be concluded within two weeks, as such, the
exercise of receiving report of enquiry and hearing of
respondent No.4 be concluded within three weeks.

¶59

17. In case, the Collector is of a prima-facie opinion of stopping the disbursement of funds to respondent No.4, he may pass appropriate orders within

¶60

one week. In case the Collector is of the opinion that
apart from any civil consequences and punitive action
against respondent No.4, other action in the nature of
criminal action, such as lodgment of report against
respondent No.4-Society, he may take such steps within
three weeks thereafter.

¶61

18. Though we dispose these Public Interest
Litigations with above referred directions, the
Collector, Beed to submit his action taken report to this
Court within ten weeks for perusal of this Court.

¶62

19 . As the petitioners have shown their willingness to deposit the amount in this Court to show their bona fides, the petitioners to deposit Rs.5,000/- in each Public Interest Litigation thus totaling Rs. 20,000/- in four Public Interest Litigations in this Court within two weeks from today. On such deposit of the amount, the amount be transferred in the account of the Chief

¶63

( 12 ) 97.19PIL

¶64

Minister's Flood Relief Fund as early as possible.

¶65

20.Public Interest Litigations are accordingly

¶66

disposed of.

¶67

[R.G. AVACHAT, J.] [PRASANNA B. VARALE,J.]

¶68

Tupe

Keshav Ramrao Bangar and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Keshav Ramrao Bangar and Another 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

Sanjiv G. Punalekar s/o. Gajanan Punalekar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sunil Ram Shinde Vs Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Rayat Vidhyarti Parishad through Its Chairman and Anr. Vs All India Council for Technical Education (Aicte) through Its Chairman and Ors.

Vasant S. Maneck Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rajkumar Chandrasen Chavan Vs Executive Engineer and Ors.

Mr. Nitin Annarao Bhopale Vs the State of Maharashtra Thru Prin. Secretary, Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Milin Vasant Mhatre Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sandip Shamrao Gidde Vs the Election Commission of India and Ors.

Yogesh Madhukar Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Anna Sitaram Unde Thorugh Lrs Ratanbai Annasaheb Unde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Prakash Kahnuchand Pardeshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Indira Education and Welfare Society Parbhani Thr Secretary Vs Najmunnisa Begum Abdul Sattar and Another

Sarvadharm Samhav Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Kendra Thourgh Secretary Bhimrao Laxman Bhagat Vs Dinesh Waghmare Secretary Social Jusice and Special Assistance Deaprtment

Santosh Supada Sonune Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others