This PIL challenging the quashing of works under state welfare schemes in Beed district was disposed of. The court upheld a coordinate Bench's decision not to interfere, citing public welfare concerns and potential delays.
Petition disposed of. No costs.
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.
pil31.21.odt
-1-
rlj
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 31 OF 2021
Vikas Vikram Jogdand … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others … Respondents
Mr. Prasanna D. Dadpe, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. D. R. Kale, Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Mr. G. K. Thigle (Naik), Advocate for Respondent No.3
CORAM : DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ AND N. B. SURYAWANSHI, J.
DATE : FEBRUARY 17, 2022.
PER COURT :
pil31.21.odt
-2-
dated 23.02.2021 passed by the Additional Secretary, Maharashtra State, Urban Development Department, (Exh. ‘I’) and Oral Order dated 02.02.2021 issued by the Ld. Minister for Social Justice and Special Assistant, and the Guardian Minister for District Beed, issued in the meeting dated 02.02.2021; and the consequential communication dated 02.02.2021 issued by the Ld. District Collector (Exh. ‘J’);
pil31.21.odt
-3-
“B”) as inserted by Government Corrigendum dated 12.08.2015 (Exhibit “C”) is ultra-vires Article 14 and 243W of the Constitution of India;
pil31.21.odt
-4-
interference bearing in mind that the subject works have been undertaken for the welfare and benefit of the public at large and that any interference would delay such work.
Vikas Vikram Jogdand
The State of Maharashtra
Dipankar Datta
N. B. Suryawanshi
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
