Dismissed

Bhausaheb Sarjerao Kale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC21 Jun 2022PIL/44/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad dismissed an untested writ petition (PIL) for default. The petitioner failed to deposit the required security of Rs. 1,00,000/- and did not place necessary documents on record despite previous orders, resulting in dismissal with a direction for deposit for potential restoration.

What did the court decide?

PIL dismissed; petitioner directed to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- for any further application to restore the petition.

Bhausaheb Sarjerao Kale Vs the State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

pil44.20

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

950 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.44 OF 2020

¶5

BHAUSAHEB SARJERAO KALE

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶8

Mr. D. R. Kale, GP for the respondents/State

¶9

CORAM :RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &

¶10

ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.

¶11

DATE:21st June, 2022

¶12

P. C.

¶13

1. This petitioner had initially filed writ petition NO.

¶14

9056/2019 seeking an enquiry against respondent No.3 on the

¶15

ground that he passes orders exceeding his authority. No order was
assailed in the said petition. By an order dated 24-07-2019, this
court (Coram: S. V. Gangapurwala and Mangesh S. Patil, JJ.)
directed in paragraph Nos.3 and 4 as under:-

¶16

“3.In that case, the matter would be in the nature of
public interest. The petitioner is not concerned with the
orders passed by respondent No.3

¶17

1 of 3

¶18

(2) pil44.20

¶19

4.To test the bonafides of the petitioner and
as a security, if any cost is imposed upon the petitioner,
the petitioner shall deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One
Lakh Only) within a period of four weeks.”

¶20

2.When this PIL was registered the said amount has not
been deposited. On 17-02-2022, an adjournment motion was
moved on behalf of the petitioner. On 21-02-2022, again an
adjournment was sought on the ground that documents will be
placed on record by the petitioner.

¶21

3.Eversince the above orders, the documents have not

¶22

been placed on record till today. So also, the amount is not
deposited.

¶23

4.Even today none appears for the petitioner.

¶24

2 of 3

¶25

(3) pil44.20

¶26

5.Considering the above and keeping in view that neither

¶27

the amount is deposited, nor the documents have been placed on

¶28

record, this PIL is dismissed in default. In case the petitioner seeks
restoration of the PIL, the application shall not be entertained until
Rs. One Lakh, as directed earlier, is deposited.

¶29

[ANIL L. PANSARE, J.]

¶30

 [RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.]

¶31

VishalK/pil44.20

¶32

3 of 3

Bhausaheb Sarjerao Kale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhausaheb Sarjerao 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

Bhagvanji Rayani vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Nitin Devendra Turaskar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secy., Dept. of Rural Devpt. and Water Conservation, Mumbai and Ors.

Rahul @ Surendra Bhagwan Shitole Vs the Ceo, Vita Nagarparishad Vita, through Government of Maharashtra

Rahul @ Surendra Bhagwan Shitole Vs the Ceo, Vita Nagarparishad Vita, through Government of Maharashtra

Varun Dev Jha and Ors. vs Securities and Exchange Board of India and Ors.

Arvind Tripathi Vs the State of Maharashtra for Ministry of Public Work Dept. and Ors.

Consumer Courts Advocates Association vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

A1-QURAISH Human Welfare Association and 2 Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Ahemadi Siddiqui Abdul Majid Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sanjay Vanilal Bhavsar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pravin Dhanraj Jagtap Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rukhyabee Bagum Saheb Kha Died Thr Lrs Mahmood Khan Saheb Kha Thr Their Power of Attorney Holder Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

M S Jai Laxmi Castings and Alloys Private Limited Thr Its Director Ajay Shrirang Agrawal Vs the Union of India and Others

Akash Gajendra Biradar Vs Neema Arrora