Pundlik S/O Baliram Shinde v. State Of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary, Public Works Deparment, Mumbai And 4 Others

PIL13-14.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

P.I.L.No.13/2014 (Pundlik Baliram Shinde .vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders.

and Registrar's orders Mr. P.J.Mehta, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mrs. B.H. Dangre, Government Pleader for Respondents 1 to 5. CORAM : B.R. Gavai & Mrs. Mridula Bhatkar, JJ.

DATED : February 25, 2015.

The petitioner has filed the present petition contending therein that there are huge scale of malpractices, irregularities and corruption insofar as the construction of road between Malhivra and Malvagad is concerned.

An affidavit-in-reply has been filed by Mr. Popat Punjaba Khandagale, the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, wherein all the details regarding issuance of tender work, allotment of contract etc. is given. It is specifically stated that the contractor had started his work and the work was even inspected by the office of the Superintendent Engineer, Vigilance and Quality Control Circle, Amravati on 10.09.2009 and accordingly issued observation memo dated 06.10.2009. It is specifically stated that the work was completed in March, 2010 and period of almost four years is passed from the said date.

On the last date, we had directed the learned Government Pleader to place on record the photographs

PIL13-14.odt since it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the road was not in existence. The learned Government Pleader has accordingly placed on record the photographs which show that the road is in existence. It is further to be noted that the construction of the road is completed in March, 2010 whereas the petition is filed in the year 2014. No explanation as to why the petitioner has not approached this Court earlier has been given.

In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain the petition. P.I.L. is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE halwai