Ramdas Mahadev Khedkar And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD _____________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ______________________________________________________ REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 120 OF 2016 IN PIL/68/2013 RAMDAS MAHADEV KHEDKAR AND OTHERS

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for the applicants: Mr.S.B. Talekar AGP for Respondent/State: Mr.Y.B. Yawalkar Advocate for petitioner in PIL : Mr. N.V. Gaware ...

CORAM: S.S.SHINDE & SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.

Dated: August 04, 2016 ...

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the review applicants. He submits that at the relevant time, the applicants were working at Nasik and during the said period from 2006 to 2010, Ahmednagar M.I.D.C. was under Pune region. He submits that in fact the applicants have no concern with the allotment of the plots. According to him, the observations made in the impugned judgment, and

particularly, in para 60 may give room for rise to issue charge-sheet against the applicants. Therefore, he submits that the order may be clarified.

2.

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicants. We do not think it necessary to clarify the order, as in para 60 of the impugned judgment, this Court has observed thus :

"Naturally, some other Officers also are involved in this illegal/unauthorised allotment of plots. Therefore, respondent no.4 will have to be directed to initiate necessary inquiry against the erring Officers involved in allotment of plots illegally and unauthorisedly during 2006 to 2010 as mentioned in the reports of Gatne Committee and Internal Committee that stringent departmental as well as penal action could be taken against them."

3.

The above observations are quite clear and unambiguous. We have not named any particular officer. The respondent authorities firstly would verify as to who were the officers involved in

allotment of plots illegally and unathorisedly during 2006 to 2010 and then they would initiate departmental as well as penal action against those who would be found responsible for the misdeeds.

4.

In that view of the matter, we do not think it necessary to give any further clarification.

5.

Review Application stands disposed of accordingly.

(SANGITRAO S. PATIL,J) (S.S. SHINDE,J) sga/