Dismissed

Vivek Ashok Malekar v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Rural Development Department and Others

Bombay HC11 Dec 2024PIL/91/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged cancellation of approval for veterinary hospital in his village and reallocation of funds to another village. Court held change is administrative exercise; without proof of mala fides, judiciary cannot reverse it under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

Public interest litigation dismissed keeping open all avenues to appropriate remedy.

Vivek Ashok Malekar Vs the State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AUG:29333-DB

¶2

1 PIL / 91 / 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 91 OF 2024

¶5

Vivek Ashok Malekar, Age : 27 Years, Occu : Agriculture, Presently working as Upsarpanch, Village Panchayat, Hingni, Tal. Mahur, Dist. Nanded .. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1] The State of Maharashtra Through its Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai

¶8

2] The Collector, Collector Office, Nanded

¶9

3] Zilla Parishad, Nanded Through its Chief Executive Officer, Nanded

¶10

4] The Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded

¶11

5] The District Animal Husbandry Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded .. Respondents

¶12

Advocate for petitioner : Mr. Yuvraj V. Kakde AGP for the respondent – State : Ms. Neha B. Kamble

¶13

CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, JJ.

¶14

DATE : 11 DECEMBER 2024

¶15

ORDER (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :

¶16

Heard learned advocate for the petitioner.

¶17

2 PIL / 91 / 2024

¶18

Petitioner who is the sarpanch of village Hingni, Taluka Mahur, District – Nanded, is objecting to the administrative order dated 01-10-2024 of respondent no. 3 – Zilla Parishad, whereby the earlier administrative approval granted for setting up of a veterinary hospital in his village, has been cancelled and instead, administrative approval has been accorded for construction of a veterinary hospital building at village Bodhadi, Taluka – Kinwat which is at a distance of 70 km.

¶19

We have heard learned advocate for the petitioner who took us through the impugned order and strenuously attempted to point out as to how the decision to cancel the veterinary hospital building construction in the petitioner’s village is improper. He would further point out, in fact, the estimate that was arrived at for carrying out construction of veterinary hospital building at Bodhadi, Taluka – Kinwat was Rs.50,00,000/-. However, it has been now increased to Rs.70,00,000/-. There was no necessity for such a change. It would adversely affect citizens / villages in and around petitioner’s village – Hingni.

¶20

This Court has inherent limitations in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is a matter of spending public money for a public work. Suitability or otherwise of the decision, in our considered view, where, by the impugned order, instead of earlier approval granted

¶21

3 PIL / 91 / 2024

¶22

for construction of a veterinary hospital in petitioner’s village, the decision has been changed and the funds have been appropriated to be spent for a similar work in some other village, would be purely an administrative exercise. Unless the petitioner is able to demonstrate and attribute some mala fides or ulterior motive, we are afraid, this Court cannot undertake any exercise and reverse it by resorting to Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶23

Keeping open all the avenues to the petitioner, to resort to appropriate remedy, the public interest litigation is dismissed.

¶24

[ PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE JUDGE

¶25

arp/

Vivek Ashok Malekar v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Rural Development Department and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Ashok Malekar v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Rural Development Department and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gorakshnath Manjapabu More Vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Others

Suhas Hari Pingle vs Union of India through Ministry of Health and Family Welfare

Umesh Shankarrao Bhole and Others vs State of Maha., Thr.Secretary, Dept. of Agriculture, Animal Husb., Dairy and Fisheries and Ors.

Suhas Hari Pingle vs Union of India through Ministry of Health and Family Welfare

Umesh Shankarrao Bhole and Others vs State of Maha., Thr.Secretary, Dept. of Agriculture, Animal Husb., Dairy and Fisheries and Ors.

Abhinav Bharat Congress through Pankaj K Phadnisffd vs State of Maharashtra

Umesh Shankarrao Bhole and Others vs State of Maha., Thr.Secretary, Dept. of Agriculture, Animal Husb., Dairy and Fisheries and Ors.

Contract for Emergency Medical Services vs the State of Maharashtra through the Prin. Secretary and Ors.

Gorakshnath Manjapabu More Vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Others

Pandurang Uttam Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra through District Collector and Others

Nirmalabai Dhanraj Chowdhari and Others Vs the Regional Asst Commissioner Sugar and Others

Najiullaha Khan Fatahula Khan Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Yashpalsingh Rajendrasingh Chavan Vs Advaitanandji Chandrakiranji Saraswati

Shivaji Ramrao Alewad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others