Balkrushna Damodhar Amrutkar vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

B. By issuing appropriate writ in the nature of direction and order and to direct the respondent no.2 to take immediate action and passed necessary orders in pursuance of the letter dated 29.10.2025 submitted by the respondent No.3, in the interest of justice.

¶13

Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner. He submits that the Board of Directors of Yogeshwar Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd, Dhule have committed various illegalities and irregularities. A complaint was filed by the petitioner and others with respondent no.3. Thereafter, respondent no.3 had carried out the test reports. He submitted two test reports and observed that there are certain illegalities and irregularities. The respondent no.3 had also carried

¶14

2

¶15

908-wp-238-2026

¶16

out the special inspection of the Pat Sanstha and a detailed report was submitted to respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 thereafter directed respondent no.3 by letter dated 04.09.2025 to take immediate action against the Board of Directors and also lodge First Information Report. Even respondent no.3 was authorized to lodge such First Information Report, however, no action was taken. The respondent no.2 once again informed the respondent no.3 to submit a fresh report as per letter dated 29.09.2025. Again respondent no.3 had filed a detailed report wherein also certain illegalities were found which were committed by the Board of Directors. The respondent no.3 had requested the respondent no.2 to pass necessary orders by modifying the earlier order. Accordingly, when no action has been taken by the respondent no.2, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶17

Learned Advocate for the petitioner made submissions supporting the contentions of the petitioner and had taken us through the documents.

¶18

Important point to be noted is that, the entire report has not been produced before this Court which appears to be a 425 pages atleast. In respect of first report, it appears that the second report

¶19

3

¶20

908-wp-238-2026

¶21

begins from page no.426 onwards. Only on the basis of communication between the respondent nos.2 and 3, the present petition has been filed. In fact, it is the internal communication between the respondent nos.2 and 3. How the petitioner has got the copy of the same is a question to which we could not find any answer in the petition.

¶22

It appears that the petitioner is more interested in the registration of First Information Report and in fact on the basis of the report, if it is permissible, the petitioner himself can set the law in motion, but when he comes to the Court for directions to be given to the respondent to lodge the report, then in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. and Ors., [(2008) 2 SCC 409] , we find ourselves not in a position to use our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The decision in Sakiri Vasu (supra) has then been confirmed in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe Vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and Ors., [(2016) 6 SCC 277] and M. Subramaniam and Ors. Vs. S. Janaki and Ors., [(2020) 16 SCC 728] . However, as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in M. Subramaniam and Ors. Vs. S. Janaki and Ors. (supra) , we are also adopting the same while dismissing the Writ Petition.

¶23

4

¶24

908-wp-238-2026

¶25

We give the liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned Judicial Magistrate First Class or Chief Judicial Magistrate, as the case may be under Section 175 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Old Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.).

¶26

If such proceedings are filed, then the concerned Court would be at liberty to decide the same upon its own merits.

¶27

In view of the above, Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶28

[AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.]

¶29

Rushikesh/2026

Balkrushna Damodhar Amrutkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balkrushna Damodhar Amrutkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Harish Parmalkar and Others vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Arun Rajaram Patil vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others

Pramod Dadaji Shinde vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary Tribal Development Department and Ors.

Pathan Mohammad Khan Chand Khan vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Kalpana Santosh Gurle vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Sayed Rafiq Syed Lal vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others