Manohar S/O Narayan Shinde v. State Of Maharashtra And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 97 OF 2012 Manohar s/o. Narayan Shinde ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

... Respondents ------ None for the Petitioner.

Ms. T.J. Kapre, A.G.P. for the Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Prabhakar M. Jadhav a/w. Mr. Rutik A. Kashik for Respondent No.4. ------ Coram : M. S. Karnik & Sharmila U. Deshmukh, JJ.

Date : 25th September 2025.

P. C. :

1.

None for the Petitioner.

2.

This P.I.L. is filed for the following reliefs : a) Issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order and/or direction directing the Respondent No.1 to constitute a high power committee including experts for investigating the irregularities occurred in Koyna Project and further direct to the committee to submit its report to this Hon'ble Court;

1 of

b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No.1 to initiate inquiry against the responsible Officers, who are responsible for the irregularities occurred in the Koyna Project and take strict action against them; c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 1 and 2 to complete the projects i.e. Stage IV and Stage IV-B, which are not completed till date, d) Costs of this petition be awarded to the Petitioner, e) For such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case.

3.

A fact finding report dated 16th February 2015 has already been taken on record of this Court. This fact finding report was submitted by the Principal Secretary (W.R.), Water Resources Department, after hearing the Petition in connection with the subject under reference. 4.

As per the last Order sheet dated 4th May 2017, though the Petitioner was present before the Court, his Advocate was absent. The matter was therefore adjourned.

5.

Having regard to the reliefs prayed for in the Petition, in our opinion, the purpose of filing the P.I.L. is served in view of the fact finding report. If the Petitioner has any grievance as regards the fact finding report, he may resort to appropriate remedies, as may be permissible under the law.

2 of

6.

We do not propose to keep the P.I.L., which is of the year 2012, pending any further.

7.

Petition is disposed off.

[ Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. ] [ M. S. Karnik, J. ] by OMKAR SHIVAHAR KUMBHAKARN Date:

2025.09.29 11:58:44 +0530 OMKAR SHIVAHAR KUMBHAKARN 3 of