Mr. Maruti Sahebrao Bhapkar And ORS v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Govt. Pleader And ORS
skn 1/3 158.16-pil.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 158 OF 2016 Mr.Maruti Sahebrao Bhapkar and others.
...
Petitioners.
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra and others.
...
Respondents.
Sagar Sankpal for the petitioners.
M.M.Pabale, AGP for the State.
CORAM :
DR.MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J.
AND G.S.KULKARNI , J.
DATE :
12th January 2017.
P.C. :
The petitioner has approached this Court espousing certain public grievances for not taking any Prabhag Sabha in terms of Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act. He has sought for the following reliefs:
(a) that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ and/or direction in the nature of writ thereby removing the concerned Councilors of Municipal Corporations situated within the State of Maharashtra from working as Councilor and/ or to dissolve the municipal corporations situated thin the State of Maharashtra;
skn 2/3 158.16-pil.sxw (b) that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ and/or direction in the nature of writ thereby directing the Respondents to conduct Area Sabha meetings within the Municipal Corporations at Maharashtra as contemplated in the provisions of Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act;
(c) that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a detailed guidelines with respect of delegation of power, proper finance proper staff, infrastructure, systematic and institutionalized procedure, time frame and other necessary things for the implementation of provision of Area Sabha as contemplated in the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act (d) that this Hon'ble Court if comes to the conclusion and disqualifying the all the elected councilor then in such a case recover all the facilities including honorarium provided by the respondents to their respective councilor or any other such directions relating to that effect may please be given to the respondents;
(e) costs of the Petition be provided for;
(f) Pass such further and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require in the interest of justice."
2.
However, now the petitioners seek permission to withdraw this petition.
skn 3/3 158.16-pil.sxw 3.
Already by notice dated 22nd February 2016, a representation was addressed to the Commissioner of PimpriChinchwad Municipal Corporation, Pimpri, Pune since there is an allegation of non-functioning of the President and Vice-President by not conducting area meetings.
4.
We direct the Pimpri-Chinchwad Corporation to dispose of the representation taking into consideration all the grievances expressed in the letter dated 22nd February 2016. Apart from this Corporation, we also direct the other respondent Corporations, which are made as parties to this petition, to look into similar complaint, if any, pending with them within a period of four weeks. 5.
Petition is disposed of as withdrawn and no order as to costs is made.
(G.S.KULKARNI, J.) CHIEF JUSTICE