Dismissed

Nilkanth Kamlaji Jaiwal v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC14 Feb 2022PIL/22/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad dismissed a PIL alleging misappropriation of funds under the Employment Guarantee Scheme. The Bench held that without an FIR prompting the statutory machinery for a cognizable offence, entertaining the PIL as a substitute for criminal proceedings was not proper.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as the Court is disinclined to entertain the PIL without an FIR to trigger the criminal machinery.

Nilkanth Kamlaji Jaiwal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Corruption | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

P.I.L. No.22/2021

¶2

:: 1 ::

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.22 OF 2021

¶5

Nilkanth s/o Kamlaji Jaiwal VERSUS

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & ors.

¶7

… PETITIONER

¶8

… RESPONDENTS

¶9

Mr. S.S. Thombre, Advocate for petitioner Mr. D.R. Kale, Government Pleader for State

¶10

CORAM : DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ AND N.B. SURYAWANSHI, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 14, 2022.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

The principal relief claimed in this P.I.L. petition reads as under:

¶13

“(B). By issuing an appropriate writ, order or directions in the like nature, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent nos.1 to 4 to appoint an appropriate enquiry committee to conduct an inquiry in respect of the works of Water Supply Scheme at village Kaygaon, Tal. Sillod, District Aurangabad executed under the Employment Guarantee Scheme and to take further action against the responsible persons including the respondent nos.8 and 9 for misappropriation of the government funds and for that purpose issue necessary orders.”

¶14

P.I.L. No.22/2021

¶15

:: 2 ::

¶16

It is alleged by the petitioner that the respondents 8 and 9 have indulged in misappropriation of public funds while construction of wells and pipelines under the Employment Guarantee Scheme were in progress and no steps have been taken against them. He seeks an order so that such allegations of misappropriation may be examined at the first instance by an enquiry committee to be appointed by this Court.

¶17

On perusal of the Public Interest Litigation, we did not find any averment of lodging of any First Information Report by the petitioner with the concerned police station. Once it is alleged that public funds have been misappropriated, which is a criminal offence, it is normal to expect the criminal law to be set in motion by lodging an F.I.R. Mr. S.S. Thombre, learned advocate for the petitioner, does not dispute that F.I.R. has not been lodged by the petitioner and that this Court has been approached directly without the police being called upon to investigate the alleged criminal offence. It is settled law that when the law provides a machinery for redress and such machinery is not invoked, it would not be a proper exercise of jurisdiction to entertain a Public Interest Litigation. In view of the same, we are

¶18

P.I.L. No.22/2021

¶19

:: 3 ::

¶20

disinclined to entertain this public interest litigation.

¶21

The P.I.L. Petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶22

This order of dismissal shall, however, not preclude the petitioner to explore his remedy elsewhere, in accordance with law.

¶23

(N.B. SURYAWANSHI, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶24

fmp/-

Nilkanth Kamlaji Jaiwal v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nilkanth Kamlaji Jaiwal 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

Sunil Sureshchandra Agarwal Vs State of Maharashtra Under Secretary and Ors.

Mr. Rambhau Mahadev Tayade Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Sandeep Pandurang Patil S/O Pandurang Sitaram Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra through Prin. Secretary, Urban Development Dept. and Anr.

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

Anil Goraksha Borude Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vikas Vikram Jogdand Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Abdul Samee Siddiqui vs the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Chaitanya Ajay Talhar Vs Th State of Maharashtra and Another

Janardan Ramrao Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ashok Dashrath Sarpate Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sangita Shivaji Gaikwad Vs Rajabhu Laxman Gore and Another

Ashok Maroti Kachkalwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sujeet Satish Deshmukh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Suhas Arun Maske and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others