Ashokappa S/O. Narayanappa Iregaonkar v. The State Of Maha., Dept. Of Rural Water Supply, Through Its Principal Secretary, Mumbai And Others

PIL101-15.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

Public Interest Litigation No.101/2015 (Ashokappa Narayanappa Iregaonkar .vs. The State of Maharashtra and others.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders.

and Registrar's orders Mr. A.S. Chakotkar, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. N.B. Jawade, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mrs. M.P. Munshi, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Mr. P.K. Raulkar, Advocate for Respondent No.7. Mr. N.B. Kalwaghe, Advocate for Respondent No.8. CORAM : B.R. Gavai & V.M. Deshpande, JJ.

DATED : July 07,2016.

1.

The petition was filed alleging therein that the work carried out by respondent no.8 was not proper and that there was a misappropriation with regard to the said work.

2.

We had, therefore, vide order dated 23.03.2016 directed respondent no.3 to conduct an enquiry about the amount of withdrawals that have been made by respondent no.8 and the actual amount spent on implementation of the scheme.

3.

In pursuance to the directions issued by this Court, an enquiry report is submitted along with the pursis dated 23.06.2016. The perusal of the report would reveal that an amount of Rs.51,87,000/- was received for the said work. It has been further found that the actual work which was executed is to the tune of Rs.63,76,350/-. It has been further found that as a matter of fact though the work is complete, an amount of Rs. 11,89,000/- was yet to be paid. It has been

PIL101-15.odt further found that the quality of the work is also good. 4.

The report further states that when the Enquiry Officer held discussion with the villagers, he was informed that in the last 10 to 12 years in Hivra Sable village there is shortage of water from the month of January itself and from March onwards the water is required to be supplied by tanker. It has been further found that if the work was not stalled, the water supply from the said scheme would have commenced in the present year itself.

5.

In that view of the matter, we find that the allegation made in the petition is without substance. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

JUDGE JUDGE halwai