Digambar Patil Balkashram Through Its Superintendent v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6851 OF 2016 Shri Manik Prabhu Sanstha Balkashram, Ambulga, Tq. Kandhar, District Nanded, Through its Superintendent PETITIONER
VERSUS
1.
The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary Women and Child Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2.
The Commissioner of Women and Child Development Mantralaya, Mumbai.
3.
The Divisional Deputy Commissioner, Women and Child Development Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
The District Women and Child Development Officer, Nanded, Dist. Nanded.
RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6853 OF 2016 Digambar Patil Balkashram (Balgrah) Shri Nagar, Mukhed, Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded Through its Superintendent PETITIONER
VERSUS
1.
The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary Women and Child Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2.
The Commissioner of Women and Child Development Mantralaya, Mumbai.
3.
The Divisional Deputy Commissioner, Women and Child Development Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
The District Women and Child Development Officer, Nanded, Dist. Nanded.
RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6854 OF 2016 Punyashlok Ahilyadevi Holkar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal's Shri Datta balakasham Hadgaon, Tq. Hadgaon, District Nanded, Through its Superintendent PETITIONER
VERSUS
1.
The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary Women and Child Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2.
The Commissioner of Women and Child Development Mantralaya, Mumbai.
3.
The Divisional Deputy Commissioner, Women and Child Development Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
The District Women and Child Development Officer, Nanded, Dist. Nanded.
RESPONDENTS ...
Mr. M.S. Karad h/f Mr. S.S. Thombre, Advocate for the petitioner in all Writ Petitions.
Mr.V.H. Dighe & Mr. S.D. Kaldate, AGPs for Respondent-State in respective Writ Petitions.
...
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ. Dated: JUNE 30, 2016 ...
ORAL JUDGMENT ( S.S. SHINDE, J) Not on board. Taken on board.
2.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the respective Petitions undertakes to deposit the deficit court fees, if any, within three weeks from today.
3.
Rule.
Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is submitted that the concerned Respondent Authorities have made assessment of the expenditure incurred by them in respect of the years concerned and after assessment, the orders have been issued indicating the amount therein, for which the petitioners are entitled as per the Government policy. The petitioners have placed on record copies of the assessment orders signed by the respondent authorities concerned. It is submitted that though there is assessment from the year 2011 onwards, as a matter of fact, the amount for which the petitioners are entitled, has not been disbursed in favour of the petitioners. It is submitted that the concerned Department has disbursed the amount to various similarly situated institutions, relying upon the assessment orders.
Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Respondents may be directed to disburse the amounts, due and payable as per the Assessment Orders, which are placed on record with the Writ Petitions, after verifying the original record maintained by the office of the concerned respondents.
5.
On the other hand the learned A.G.P.
appearing for the Respondent/State submits that the Departments of Planning and Finance have not approved the proposals forwarded by the concerned Department i.e. the Department of Woman and Child Development, for sanction and disbursement of the amount, and the said Departments have raised certain queries. He prays that the hearing of these Petitions may be deferred and six weeks time may be given to the Respondent/State, so as to carry out reassessment and also ask the concerned department to cure the deficiencies/ clear the doubts pointed out by the Planning and Finance Departments.
6.
We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned A.G.P. appearing for the Respondent- State. With their able assistance, we have perused the pleadings in the Petitions and annexures thereto.
7.
It is not in dispute that the concerned Department by making budgetary provision after issuing Government Resolution has disbursed substantial amount in favour of some of the institutions similarly situated
like the petitioners. It, prima facie, appears that there is some difference of opinion between the concerned Department i.e. Department of Woman and Child Development on one hand and the Departments of Planning and Finance on the other about disbursement of the amounts claimed. It is an internal matter of the State Government and all the concerned in the process will have to resolve the same at their level.
amounts should be disbursed to them within two weeks thereafter. However, the entire exercise should be done within 12 weeks from today. We make it clear that the Heads of the Departments of Woman and Child Development, Planning and Finance Department and the Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra would be jointly responsible for implementation of the directions issued hereinabove.
8.
With the above observations/ directions, all the Writ Petitions stand disposed of.
9.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
10.
The parties shall act upon authenticated copy of this order.
Sd/- Sd/- (SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.) SGA