Dinanath Manik Katkar v. State Of Maharashtra Through Its Chief Secretary Government Of Maharashtra And ORS.

Digitally signed by MUGDHA MANOJ PARANJAPE Date:

2024.02.15 14:06:54 +0530 MUGDHA MANOJ PARANJAPE 1 31-PIL 29-21.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 29 OF 2021 Dinanath Manik Katkar ... Petitioner Vs.

State of Maharashtra, through it's Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra & Ors.

... Respondents Mr. Sujeet R. Bugade for the Petitioner.

Mr. P. P. Kakade, GP with Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Addl. GP with Mrs. G. R. Raghuvanshi, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4, 6 and 7-State.

Mr. Jagdish G. Aradwad (Reddy) for Respondent No.8. CORAM : DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. & ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.

DATE : 14th FEBRUARY 2024 P.C. :

Heard learned Counsel representing the Petitioner, learned Government Pleader representing the Respondent-State and learned Counsel representing the Respondent-Barshi Municipal Council.

2 31-PIL 29-21.doc 2.

By filing this Public Interest Litigation Petition, a prayer has been made to constitute some inquiry committee for hearing the Complaint dated 09th December 2020 made by the Petitioner, which has been annexed as Exhibit-B to the Writ Petition.

3.

When we examine the Complaint/Representation dated 09th December 2020, which has been annexed as ExhibitB to the Petition, what we find is that the same has been made to every authority except the Chief Officer, Barshi Municipal Council. Since the subject matter of the complaint is situated within the municipal limits of Barshi Municipal Council, the Petitioner ought to have taken up his grievance with the Chief Officer of the said Municipal Council before filing this Petition. 4.

In view of the aforesaid, we dispose of this Public Interest Litigation Petition with a liberty to the Petitioner to approach Respondent No.8 seeking redressal of his grievance, by way of making a fresh Representation within a fortnight from today. If such Representation is made, the same shall be

3 31-PIL 29-21.doc considered and appropriate decision shall be taken, which may be warranted under the law within eight weeks thereafter. 5.

The decision so taken by Respondent No.8 on the Representation preferred by the Petitioner under this order shall be communicated to him.

(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)