Raju Deorao Sarode v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

29-WP-11919-2022.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.11919 OF 2022 RAJU DEORAO SARODE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Vijaykumar C Patil (Ashtekar) AGP for Respondents/State: Mr. S. G. Sangle ...

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.

DATE : 12th December, 2022 PER COURT :

1.

By this petition, the petitioner desires that we should issue a Writ of Mandamus and direct a departmental Inquiry against an employee, who is working in the Tahsil Office at Bhokardan. The contention is that the respondent no.6/Officer ill-treated the petitioner and asked for a bribe. On questioning, the learned Advocate for the petitioner submits as under:- (a) No FIR was filed by the petitioner against respondent no.6. (b) The petitioner did not approach the Anti-Corruption Bureau against respondent no.6.

(c) The petitioner did not file any complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

29-WP-11919-2022.odt 2.

The learned AGP points out that the representation made by the petitioner on 22.08.2022 has already been considered by the Resident Deputy Collector, Jalna and certain action has been initiated with regard to an inquiry in the allegations of the petitioner. Despite the same, the petitioner desires that this Court should initiate departmental inquiry against respondent no.6. 3.

In view of the above and since the time of the Court has been wasted, this is a fit case for imposing costs of Rs.25000/-. However, the learned Advocate for the petitioner submits, on instructions, that the Court may impose little costs of only Rs.5000/-. 4.

In view of the above, this petition is dismissed. Costs of Rs.5000/- shall be deposited by the petitioner with the Advocates' Association Bar Library, High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad, on or before 22.12.2022.

5.

At this juncture, the learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the matter may be treated as withdrawn and costs would still be deposited. As such, this petition is treated as disposed off as withdrawn, with costs as directed.

(SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) Sameer