The High Court dismissed a PIL filed by a petitioner concerning alleged over-payments to government employees. The court held the petition lacked merit due to vague allegations and insufficient research by the petitioner.
The petition was dismissed at the threshold.
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.
9.20PIL
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 9 OF 2020
Kalyan S/o Vasantrao Salunke, Age 48 years, Occ. Business, R/o Opp. Zilla Parishad School, Shivaji Chowk, Gangapur, Tal. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad ..PETITIONER
VERSUS
Mr S. B. Solanke, Advocate for petitioner; Mr S. B. Yawalkar, A.G.P. for respondent-State
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND
R. G. AVACHAT, JJ.
DATE : 23rd January, 2020
9.20PIL
(2)
ORAL ORDER:
Heard Mr Solanke, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner at length.
9.20PIL (3)
dated 26th May, 2016 shows that there was an order passed by the Administrative Tribunal, dated 12th October, 2015 and the Desk Officer, by way of this communication informed the addressee to take steps immediately by fixing the responsibility on the erring officers and to initiate the action as per the Maharashtra Civil Services Rules. It is also informed to the addressee to submit the action taken report to the State. Thus, what emerges from the perusal of this communication is, the State Government is following a proper procedure, whereby the first step is to fix the responsibility on the erring officer and then to initiate action as per the Civil Service Rules.
(4)
leave encashment without considering the revision of his pay scale and thereby again paid an excess amount to said employee.” This statement is as vague as it could be. Neither name of the officer and the period in which that particular officer against whom the allegations are made in the representation are referred to nor there is any material that this officer was held responsible and can be retreated as erring officer on some enquiry conducted by the State Government. With such a vague material, no public interest litigation can be entertained for the reason that as per the Rules of public interest litigation, it is a pre-requisite that the petitioner is filing the petition on a research conducted by him. It may not be out of place to state that when there is an expectation of research, there should be at least satisfaction of minimum elements of search. In the present case, we are unable to satisfy ourselves to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner undertook an exercise of any search, leave aside research.
(R. G. AVACHAT, J.)
(PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)
sjk
3 issues framed by the court
Whether this Public Interest Litigation satisfies the requirement of preliminary research and specific material before the court.
Whether the petition asserts vague allegations without naming specific erring officers or providing evidence of enquiring action taken.
Whether the petition is devoid of merit and deserves dismissal at the threshold.
Kalyan S/o Vasantrao Salunke
The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department
The Executive Director, Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation
The Chief Engineer and Chief Administrator, Command Area Development Authority
The Superintending Engineer and Administrator, Command Area Development Authority
The Executive Engineer, Jayakwadi Irrigation Division
Prasanna B. Varale
R. G. Avachat
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
