Sandeep Sharadchandra Thakur v. The State Of Maharashtra, Through Its Govt. Pleader And ORS.

903-CAIST.4604.2018.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION (ST) NO. 4604 OF 2018 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 53 OF 2013 Sandeep Sharadchandra Thakur } Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra } and Ors.

} Respondents Mr.Sandeep Thakur-petitioner in person.

Mr.B.V.Samant-AGP for respondent no.1.

Mr.S.V.Marne for respondent no.2.

Mr.Shayamli Gadre with Mr.Pradnesh Lokegaonkar I/b. M/s.Little and co. for respondent no.3.

Dr.Milind Sathe-Senior Advocate I/b. Mr.Sameer Mhatre for respondent no.5.

Mr.Anil Sakhare-Senior Advocate with Mr.R.V. Bansode for respondent no.6.

CORAM :- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & R. I. CHAGLA, JJ.

DATED :- DECEMBER 13, 2019 P.C. :- 1.

The affidavits that are filed by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) in pursuance of our earlier order are taken on record. The directions in the order passed on the PIL on the previous occasions are complied with. J.V.SALUNKE,PS

903-CAIST.4604.2018.doc 2.

In the event the petitioner is of the view that the real culprits have not been booked, none prevents him from bringing it to the notice of the competent authority that, apart from the officials to whom show cause notice has been issued by respondent no. 3, some high ranking officials, including the Chief Executive Officer at the relevant time should be proceeded against. If such an application is made to the authority competent to proceed against the Chief Executive Officer, let that be decided within a period of four weeks from the date the application/ complaint in writing is received.

3.

As far as the recovery is concerned, the show cause notice has been issued and the MIDC assures that the recovery measures will be taken to their logical conclusion by passing appropriate orders in accordance with law. There again, we find that if any grievance subsists, particularly that the show cause notice is not addressed to the fifth respondent, the petitioner is not prevented from proceeding against the fifth respondent in accordance with law or bring to the notice of the officials the specific role that he attributes to the fifth respondent.

4.

We do not think that we should go on monitoring and supervising the action any further. The affidavit tendered today is accepted as compliance of this court's orders of 13th September, 2019 and 20th November, 2019.

(R.I.CHAGLA, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.) J.V.SALUNKE,PS