Disposed

Rajkumar Ambulal Agrawal v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC29 Sept 2021PIL/6/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The PIL regarding removal of Municipal Council officials was disposed of. The court accepted a settlement involving partial donation of a security deposit and directed the authorities to resume proceeding within three months.

What did the court decide?

PIL disposed of following petitioner's settlement proposal for donation; authorities directed to decide proceedings within three months.

Rajkumar Ambulal Agrawal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Corruption | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1 957-PIL 6-2021.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 6 OF 2021

¶4

Rajkumar Ambulal Agrawal

¶5

.. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and others

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Mr. L. V. Sangeet, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. D. R. Kale, I/c. G. P. for Respondent No. 1.
Mr. A. S. Sawant, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3.

¶10

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

¶11

 DATED : 29th September, 2021.

¶12

PER COURT:-

¶13

.Mr. Sangeet, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
though the report is submitted in December 2019, no action is taken
against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in proceedings under Section 55-A and
55-B of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and
Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1965).
The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are required to be removed as President
and Councilor of the Municipal Council, Rahata.

¶14

2.Mr. Sawant, learned counsel appears for respondent Nos. 2

¶15

and 3.

¶16

1 of 3

¶17

2 957-PIL 6-2021.odt

¶18

3.The learned in-charge Government Pleader on instructions
submits that in the proceedings under Section 55-A and 55-B of the Act
of 1965 earlier notices could not be issued because of Covid-19. Now,
on 21.09.2021 notices are issued to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to file
reply and on receiving the reply opportunity of hearing would be given
and then decision would be taken. The learned in-charge Government
Pleader submits that the authority would endeavour to decide the
proceedings under Section 55-A and 55-B of the Act of 1965 preferably
within a period of three (03) months from today.

¶19

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. Two Lakh only) is deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the orders of this Court.

¶20

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions submits
that out of an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-, Rs. 50,000/- be donated to the
public cause and Rs. 1,50,000/- be allowed to be withdrawn by the
petitioner. Out of an amount of Rs. 50,000/-, an amount of Rs.
25,000/- be transmitted to the Government Covid Centre and
remaining amount of Rs. 25,000/- be remitted to the High Court Bar
Association. An amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- is allowed to be withdrawn
by the petitioner.

¶21

2 of 3

¶22

3 957-PIL 6-2021.odt

¶23

6. Public interest litigation is disposed of. No costs.

¶24

( R. N. LADDHA ) ( S. V. GANGAPURWALA ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶25

P.S.B.

¶26

3 of 3

Rajkumar Ambulal Agrawal v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkumar Ambulal Agrawal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Ashok S/O Shriram Garmode Vs the Secretary, Department of Revenue and Forest, Mumbai and Others

Kailas Arjun Mali Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Lokjagar Foundation through President Pandharinath Shankarrao Sable Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Yuvraj Babusingh Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

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

Uttamrao Rambhaji Shelke Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Others

Shamsundar Gowardhan Handibag Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jai Tulja Bhawani Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Thr Its Secretary and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ali Haidar Khan Ajmal Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Others

Valmik Rajaram Garudkar Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Others

Ram Dharmaraj Jogdand Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Principal Secretary and Others

Jaspal Mahendrasingh Girase Vs the Admission Regulating Authority Mumbai and Others