Disposed

Avinash Munjajirao Kale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC15 Jan 2021PIL/68/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this public interest litigation concerning irregularities in the Kolhapuri Bandhara, the court held that since an enquiry committee was already constituted and further action would be taken based on its report, no further orders were required, and the petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner deposited Rs.25,000/- for the Chief Minister's COVID fund; remaining deposit returned to petitioner; Public Interest Litigation disposed of.

Avinash Munjajirao Kale Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

P.I.L. 68-2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 68 OF 2020

¶5

Avinash s/o Munjajirao Kale

¶6

..Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and ors.

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

Mr M.P. Kale, Advocate for petitioner Mr D.R. Kale, In-charge G.P. for respondent-State

¶11

CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA AND SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.

¶12

DATE : 15th January 2021

¶13

PER COURT :

¶14

We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Incharge Government Pleader.

¶15

Learned In-charge G.P., on instructions submits that the enquiry Committee is already constituted on the basis of complaints received with regard to the irregularities in the work of Kolhapuri Bandhara. The enquiry Committee would conduct the enquiry and submit the report.

¶16

It is further submitted that further action would be taken on the basis of the enquiry report received.

¶17

The prayer of the petitioner was to conduct an enquiry about the irregularities in the work. The prayer of the petitioner is fructified. As it is also submitted that further steps would be taken against the erring persons as per the enquiry report, no further orders are necessary. If in future the grievance of the petitioner is not redressed, then the petitioner will have opportunity to agitate against the same.

¶18

¶19

P.I.L. 68-2020

¶20

As the enquiry Committee is already constituted, the bona fides of the petitioner need not be doubted.

¶21

The petitioner has deposited amount of Rs.1 lakh pursuant to the order dated 14.12.2020. Mr Kale, the learned Counsel, on instructions graciously agrees to donate Rs.25,000/- to the Chief Minister's COVID fund. The amount of Rs.25,000/- be transferred to the Chief Minister's COVID fund. The remaining amount of Rs.75,000/- be given to the petitioner.

¶22

Public Interest Litigation disposed of.

¶23

( SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.) ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

¶24

vvr

Avinash Munjajirao Kale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avinash Munjajirao Kale 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

Sanjay Bhaskarrao Kale Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Others

Chandrashekhar Raghavan Pillai and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Mumbai and Others

Vijaykant Vikram Munde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shailesh Gandhi and 5 Ors. vs Maharashtra State Information Commission

Vinod Nagorao Bharne Vs the Union of India and Others

Sanjay Bhaskarrao Kale Vs the Union of India and Others

Dinkar Bhagwanrao Ingle and Another Vs the Union of India and Others

Grampanchayat Savangi through Its Upa Sarpanch Shaikh Kadir Shaikh Abdul Raheman Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Monika Rajenra Mhaske Vs the State Election Commission and Others

Rekha Deepak Jatal Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Collector Beed and Others

Inamdar Mohsin Mohammed Harun Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Principal Secretary and Others

Laxminarayan Chotelal Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Others

Sanjivan Devidas Ghogre Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Additional Commissioner Tribal

Sulbha Vasant Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others