Disposed

Madhav Ambadasrao Nirmal v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC7 Oct 2021PIL/11/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the PIL filed to delay road construction to ensure water pipeline installation. Later, the Court granted the petitioner a partial refund of filing fees, directing donation of portions to the Government Covid Centre and Bar Association, with the balance in hand.

What did the court decide?

PIL disposed. Rs. 50,000 refund to petitioner; Rs. 25,000 donated to Govt. Covid Centre; Rs. 25,000 to Bar Association.

Madhav Ambadasrao Nirmal Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1 pil 11.2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

1002 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.11 OF 2020

¶4

MADHAV AMBADASRAO NIRMAL

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AD OTHERS

¶7

...

¶8

Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. Thombre Bhagwan V.
AGP for Respondents/State: Mr. S. K. Tambe
Advocate for Respondent No. 7: Mr. R. S. Deshmukh
i/b. Mr. Devang Deshmukh

¶9

Advocate for Respondent No. 8: Mr. V. P. Latange

¶10

...

¶11

CORAM:S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
R. N. LADDHA, JJ.

¶12

DATE:07th OCTOBER, 2021

¶13

PER COURT:

¶14

1.Mr. Thombre, learned Advocate for the

¶15

petitioner submits that present petition is filed
in the public interest only to safeguard the
public exchequer. According to the learned
Advocate, the work order is issued for
constructions of the road. The water pipeline has
to be errected. Unless work of water pipeline is
completed the construction of road is not viable.
The learned Advocate submits that if the roads are
constructed now then for water pipeline the roads

¶16

will have to be dug. It will cause loss to the

¶17

2 pil 11.2020 public exchequer. The learned Advocate submits

¶18

that there are no spaces left at the side of the
roads so as to errect the water pipeline for the
purpose of supplying water to the residents of the
town.

¶19

2.The affidavit is filed by respondent no. 7
Chief Officer of the Municipal Council. The said
affidavit is also relied by the President of the
Municipal Council. The State has also filed the
affidavit to the effect that the authorities are
following the Government Resolutions.

¶20

3.The affidavit filed by the Chief Officer of
the Municipal Council clearly states that
Resolution bearing no. 4 passed by respondents
no. 7 and 8 on 15.03.2017 states that a good

¶21

quality and standard works are to be done under
the reformation scheme to be implemented in the
localities other than Dalit localities. The said
works will have to be completed after completion
of water supply distribution work. Prior to that,
a Development Plan shall be proposed with layout

¶22

3 pil 11.2020

¶23

map by obtaining technical administrative sanction
to the same. It is decided to complete the work of
water supply in Kille Dharur town first before
commencement of other development works. It is
further stated in the affidavit that e-tender
No. 5 is floated for 18 works for Rasta Anudan

¶24

Yojana and one work of Green Belt under
Vaishtyapurna Scheme and not a single work has
been started under the above said scheme and no
work order is issued. No pipeline work will be
affected due to work of Green Belt in
Vaishishtyapurna Scheme. All the works in Rasta
Anudan Yojana are in respect of the WBM road
(Khadakarn) and it’s strengthening and due to
which no pipeline will be affected. It is further
averred that necessary instructions of starting
works after completion of pipeline will be given
at the time of issuance of work orders. The road

¶25

construction as per e-tender no. 2 dated
25.10.2018 is complete. While completing the
construction of road no water supply to the town
is affected. The said road is of 15 Meters and

¶26

4 pil 11.2020

¶27

side berm are installed to the road side. No
pipeline would be affected in future.

¶28

4.On oath the statement has been made by the
Chief Officer. The Chief Officer is a responsible
officer who knows the consequences of making a
statement on affidavit and if the the same is
found to be incorrect and / or false. We are not
going into the allegations made by the Chief
Officer against the petitioner or vice-versa.

¶29

5.In view of the above, now it would not be
appropriate to entertain the Public Interest
Litigation.

¶30

6.In the light of above, the Public Interest
Litigation is disposed of.

¶31

7.Mr. Thombre, learned Advocate for the
petitioner seeks refund of the amount of
Rs. 1,00,000/-. The learned Advocate for the
petitioner, on instructions, graciously submits
that Rs.25,000/- be donated to Government Covid

¶32

5 pil 11.2020

¶33

Centre and another Rs.25,000/- be remitted to the
Aurangabad High Court Bar Association.

¶34

8.In the light of above, the Registry shall
remit an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five
Thousand only) to the Government Covid Centre and
another Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand
only) to the Aurangabad High Court Bar
Association. Remaining 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty
Thousand only) is allowed to be withdrawn by the
petitioner.

¶35

marathe

Madhav Ambadasrao Nirmal v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhav Ambadasrao Nirmal 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tribal Doctors Forum and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Commissioner and Competent Auth. State Cet Cell, Mumbai and Anr.

Uttamrao Rambhaji Shelke Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Others

Dileep v Saptarshi and 2 Ors. vs Assistant Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai-H West Ward and 3 Ors.

Jagruk Nagarik Manch Thr Its President Suhas Chintaman Mulay Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bhushan Ishwar Mahajan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Asif Shaukat Qureshi vs Union of India, through Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi and Another

Janardan Gulabrao Moon vs Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and Others

Chhava Jankranti Sanghatna Maharashtra Thr Its President Sharad Ukha Pawar and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Snehal Hemant Patole Vs Shivaji Patil and Another

Kiran Onkar Wani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sunita Janardhanrao Arthamwar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sadashiv Vishwanath Sondge Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Janseva Samajik Va Bahuudeshiya Sanstha Thr Its President Sunil Dilip Ramoshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Janseva Samajik Va Bahuudeshiya Sanstha Thr Its President Sunil Dilip Ramoshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others