Bombay High CourtPIL/161/2016disposed off

Shrikant Madhav Karve v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary (Parivahan) And ORS

2017-08-10Hon'Ble The Chief Justice,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Nitin Jamdar2 pages

PIL/161/2016 BDPSPS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.161 OF 2016 Shrikant Madhav Karve .... Petitioner.

V/s The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

..... Respondents.

None for the Petitioner.

Mrs. M.P. Thakur, AGP for the State.

CORAM: DR. MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J. & N.M. JAMDAR, J.

DATE: 10th August, 2017 P.C.:- 1] Petitioner and his Counsel are absent. Learned Government Advocate submits that she has received instructions so far as inaction against the Officers at the check post of the border i.e. Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 is concerned. She submits that already an inquiry has been initiated and the same is under progress.

2] According to the Petitioner, he is a resident of Pune and his main ambition in life is to do social service and in that direction he is before this Court with regard to the present Petition. According to him, while issuing certificate of fitness under section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1/2

PIL/161/2016 so far as transport vehicles are concerned, the Officers at the check posts of the border are not complying with the procedure contemplated and, on the other hand, for personal gains, they are not taking proper action against the persons who have committed illegalities or irregularities in maintaining the vehicles. According to the Petitioner, Respondent Nos. 4 to 8, in spite of receiving several complaints, have not stopped their illegal activities and no action by the higher authorities is initiated against these Officers viz. Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 with regard to the illegal acts committed by them. The Petitioner, in terms of para Nos. 7 and 8 of the Petition, refers to several such instances of overlooking the complaints reporting of not following the procedure contemplated.

3] Since the departmental inquiry has already commenced, we are of the opinion that no further direction is required, except saying that inquiry now initiated must be taken to its logical end within a reasonable time. With these directions, Petition is disposed of. (N.M. JAMDAR, J.