The Bombay High Court Bench at Aurangabad dismissed a PIL seeking inquiry into illegal expenditure on Nalla deepening work. The Court held the petition lacked merit due to factual lacunae and unverified assumptions regarding authorities' inaction.
Petition dismissed at the threshold for lack of merit and factual basis.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
116.19pil
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.116 OF 2019
Nanasaheb S/o Babasaheb Patil, Age: 46 years, Occ: Agri & Social Worker, R/o Bedarwadi, Post Pathrud, Tq. Bhum, District: Osmanabad
..PETITIONER
VERSUS
Mr S. T. Veer, Advocate for petitioner; Mr S. P. Sonpawale, A.G.P. for respondents -State
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND
ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.
116.19pil
(2)
DATE : 13th January, 2020
ORAL ORDER:
Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner at length.
116.19pil (3)
lodged at the instance of one Shri. Anil Namdeorao Shendge, the Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Bhoom, District Osmanabad issued a show cause notice to the Taluka Agriculture Officer, Bhoom, taking recourse to the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1979.
116.19pil (4)
Counsel for the petitioner, he invited our attention to paragraph No.7 of the petition. The reading of paragraph No.7 nowhere shows that the petitioner makes any statement that as per the communication dated 20th February, 2018, the Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer has submitted a report to the District Superintending Agriculture Officer on or before 28th February, 2018 and without there being any such statement, paragraph No.7 concludes with a statement that till today, no any concrete action is taken by the respondents against the erring officers. If there is no statement to the effect that there is a compliance of the communication dated 20th February, 2018 and if there is no such statement to arrive at a conclusion that the officers have erred and committed some act or some mischief, would be only a conclusion drawn on assumptions and presumptions. This Court cannot take exercise of drawing conclusion on assumptions and presumptions, even though the petitioner proceeded on assumptions and presumptions.
(ANIL S. KILOR, J.)
sjk
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a public interest litigation can be entertained where the petition lacks factual basis regarding compliance of impugned orders and is based on assumptions.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Nanasaheb S/o Babasaheb Patil
The State of Maharashtra
The District Superintendent Agriculture Officer, Osmanabad
The Sub-Divisional Agriculture Officer, Bhum
Prasanpedia B. Varale
Anil S. Kilor
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
