Balasaheb Gunda Ligade Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary to the Ministry of Home Affairs and Ors.

¶1

6-pil-187-2015.doc

¶2

NIKITA KAILAS DARADE Digitally signedby NIKITAKAILAS DARADE Date: 2025.11.0618:39:23 +0530

¶3

Nikita

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.187 OF 2015

¶7

Balasaheb Gunda Ligade … Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents

¶8

Mr. Rugwed R. Kinkar a/w Mr. Balasaheb Ligade a/w Mr. Rajvardha S. Chougule i/b Mr. Drupad Patil for the Petitioner.

¶9

Ms. T. J. Kapre, AGP for the State.

¶10

CORAM : M. S. KARNIK & AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ.

¶11

DATED : 6^th NOVEMBER, 2025

¶12

ORAL ORDER (PER M. S. KARNIK, J.):

¶13

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned AGP for the State.

¶14

This public interest litigation was filed as far as back the year 2015 for the following reliefs:

¶15

“i. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ of Mandamus and/or any other Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus directing Respondent No. 1 to order the restoration of the structures in the Swantantrapur Open Colony, Atpadi.

¶16

ii. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ of

¶17

1

¶18

6-pil-187-2015.doc

¶19

Mandamus and/or any other Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus directing Respondent No. 1 to provide for the necessary Medical facilities, particularly an ambulance for the inmates and their families.

¶20

iii. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ of Mandamus and/or any other Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus directing Respondent No. 1 to provide ration at a subsidized rate for the inmates inmates.”

¶21

So far as the main relief in terms of prayer clause 10(i) is concerned, during the pendency of the petition, the same is worked out. We have perused the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 and 2, dated 21^st September, 2016. The said affidavit lists various facilities which have been made available to the inmates in the different open colonies. In the affidavit it is stated that though the inmates are issued with ration card but are not provided with subsidized rate, although proposal has been sent to the government for consideration. The copy of the communication is dated 16^th October, 2015.

¶22

Learned AGP submits that though such proposal has been submitted, decision has not been taken on the said communication. It is therefore necessary for the State Government to take appropriate decision on the letter dated 16^th October, 2015 which is mentioned in paragraph No.9 of the public interest litigation as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 16 weeks from today.

¶23

So far as the medical facilities to the inmates are concerned, it is submitted in paragraph No.7 and 8 as under:

¶24

“7. With reference to Para 4(c), I say and submit that Swatantrapur Open Colony is provided with all facilities by Government which includes, 28 rooms for purpose of residing,

¶25

2

¶26

6-pil-187-2015.doc

¶27

medical aid, the inmates are given Rs. 70/- per day as daily wages, apart from that they are provided with newspaper, Library facility, colour Television, even medical camps are organized for inmates, visitors can visit Open Colony. Free water, electricity is provided, 2 gunthas (2000 sq.ft) of land for agriculture purpose. Present inmates residing at Atpadi is 4 as against the authorized strength of 27 inmates and 9 employees of Prison Department which includes (1 Jailor Gr-1, 2 Havildars and 6 Constables) are deputed to look after the security of Open Colony.

¶28

With reference to Para 4(d), I say and submit that contents in this Para are denied. It is submitted that inmates are provided with adequate medical and health care facilities. In case of medical need inmates are sent to Rural Hospital, Atpadi, Dist. Sangli, and in case of any critical condition of inmates, with the help of police escort such inmates are admitted to District Hospital, Sangli. Letters are sent to District Collector. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit-8 colly, are the copies of letters dated 03.08.2015, 07.08.2015 and 18.09.2015.

¶29

It is further stated that regular camps are conducted for inmates which, includes Blood, Eye and HIV status checkup etc. and even medical camp was conducted on 07.05.2016. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit-9 is a copy of letter dated 30.04.2016 for conducting camp.”

¶30

It is the grievance of the petitioner that for sending the inmates to the rural hospital in case of any critical condition of the inmates, there are no adequate transport facilities provided. In paragraph No.8, it has been clearly mentioned that in case of medical need, inmates are sent to Rural Hospital Atpadi, District Sangli and in case of any critical condition of inmates, with the help of police escort, such inmates are admitted to the District Hospital Sangli.

¶31

Learned AGP submitted that there are adequate transport facilities available ensuring that the inmates are immediately provided the transport facilities for being admitted to the Rural Hospital Atpadi. Recording this assurance of the learned AGP, which in any case, the authorities of the open prison are bound to

¶32

3

¶33

6-pil-187-2015.doc

¶34

provide, the petition is disposed of.

¶35

In case the petitioner still has grievance regarding the compliance of the directions issued, liberty to apply.

¶36

(AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.) (M.S. KARNIK, J.)

¶37

4

Balasaheb Gunda Ligade v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary to the Ministry of Home Affairs and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balasaheb Gunda Ligade v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary to the Ministry of Home Affairs and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit Rishikesh Mishra vs the Municipal Commissioner Navi Mumbai and Ors.

Shri. Kamlakar Bhagoji Phatkare vs the Chief Executive Officer and Ors.

Conscious Citizen Forum Non-Governmental Organization Throu. Kumar Kamlesh vs State of Maharashtra Thru. Urban Development Dept and and Ors.

Sharad Ghodke vs State of Maharashtra Throu. Is Principal Sec. Dept of Urban Development and Ors.

Deepak Ramdas Mogal and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Thr Secretary and Ors.

Shekh Shoab Gafurmohmad vs the Union of India through the Ministry of Home Affairs

Bhagwan Parshuram Bhoge and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thru. Secretary and Ors.

Bhagwan Parshuram Bhoge and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra Thru. Secretary and Ors.

Ujjwala Kisan Kadam Vs Administrator and the Principal District and Sessions Judge and Ors.

Vijayalaxmi Ashish Pawale @ Vijayalaxmi Ashokkumar Birajdar Vs T. S. Pawar and Ors.

Jaydeep S/O Raju Chavan Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Gaurav Sagun Yesaji Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary School Education Dept. and Ors.

1. Yash Sanjay Sale Vs State of Maharashtra

Adhikrao S/O Rangrao Hajare Vs the State of Maharashtra Thro. Its Secretary Finance Department