Ahilyadevi Holkar Shik.Sanstha vs State Of Mah. & Others on 1 April, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
2 wp1452-99
ORAL JUDGMENT ( Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.)
The petition was heard by this Bench only initially on 16.9.2015
and following order came to be passed.
Shri Patil, leaned AGP appearing for
respondent Nos. 1 & 2 submits that orally his office has
been informed that the land and building ( not fully
constructed) are lying unutilized.
to 3 to take necessary steps to secure the government
property. The petitioner is permitted to file suitable
affidavit bringing on record the subsequent events. The
affidavit be filed within two weeks.
The request made by Shri Chitalay, learned
counsel for discharge will be considered on the next date.
Place the matter for further consideration
29.09.2015."
2. Thereafter we heard the matter again on 30.9.2015 and passed
following order.
3 wp1452-99
"Heard Shri Pardhy, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Shri Patil, learned AGP for respondent Nos.1
to 3 and Shri Chitalay, learned counsel for
respondent No. 4.
The matter is heard further in the backdrop of
our orders dated 16.09.2015.
Shri Chitalay, learned counsel states that
Respondent No. 4 has contacted his office and
has provided documents which show that building
was complete way back in the year 2001. As the
necessary permission was not given by the State
Government, Vruddhashram could not be
commissioned. He is seeking time to place on record
the said document.
Shri Pardhy, learned counsel submits that he
has also received documents which show that the
construction was made on a land provided free of cost by
the Government and it was not complete. As the
construction could not be put to any use, it has become
dilapidated. Its doors, windows and fixtures are
already lost. He submits that Respondent No. 4 was
selected only because of recommendations of a
Guardian Minister and in violation of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
The learned AGP states that
telephonically he has received instructions to the
effect that Vruddhashram has not been
commissioned and the property is lying unutilized.
The government had released funds in excess of Rs.64
lacs for construction and land has been sanctioned at
nominal premium of Rs.1/-. No other Vruddhashram has
come up in that area. He further adds that the duty of
providing and administering Vruddhashram is now
handed over to Zilla Parishads.
On 16.09.2015, we have directed
Respondent No. 1 - State Government, Respondent No. 2
- Collector and Respondent No. 3 - District
Social Welfare Officer at Buldhana, to see that
whatever construction stands on government land and
land itself are not lost and are secured. All these
4 wp1452-99
developments, therefore, constrain us to direct
Respondent No. 2 - Collector, Buldhana, to look into
the matter and find out whether still a need for providing
Vruddhashram in the area exists. If there are some
legislative changes in this regard, those changes shall also
be looked into by the Collector.
We direct the petitioner as also Respondent
No. 4 to appear before Respondent No. 2 - Collector for
said purpose on 19.10.2015. Respondent No. 2 shall
after hearing them as also hearing Respondent No. 3 and
concerned Zilla Parishad (if any), take suitable decision
and find out the need mentioned supra.
The report of the Collector shall be filed with
the Registry of this Court within next four weeks.
List the matter for further consideration on
30.11.2015.
The parties are at liberty to complete their
pleadings in the meanwhile.
An ordinary copy of this order be furnished to
the parties."
3. The Collector, Buldhana had accordingly submitted a report
dated 26.9.2015.
4. We have heard advocate Pardhy for petitioner, advocate Chitalay
for respondent no. 4 and learned AGP Shri A.V. Palshikar for respondent
nos. 1 to 3. Nobody appears for respondent no. 5. The contention is,
allotment of land was made to respondent no.4 because of recommendation
of respondent no.5.
5. Cognizance of this petition was taken on 4.5.1999 when this
court issued notice before admission. Rule was issued on 13.7.2001 and on
that date this court also issued rule on stay. In that order, this court prima
5 wp1452-99
facie recorded that building was completed by respondent no.4 by spending
about Rs.68 lakh. The Vruddhashram was run under Matoshree
Vruddhashram Scheme. Hence, this court rejected prayer for interim relief.
6. Perusal of report filed by Collector, Buldhana shows that present
petitioner as also respondent no. 4 assisted Collector with the help of their
advocate and produced relevant records. Sub Divisional Officer working
with Zilla Parishad Buldhana also assisted Collector. Collector had taken
note of the fact that in the meanwhile provisions of Maintenance and
Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 has come into force and
as per Section 19(1) thereof duty has been cast upon the State Government
to establish and maintain old age homes. At least one home per district with
capacity to accommodate 150 senior citizens who are indigent is expected.
The State Government of Maharashtra has also framed rules in 2010 to
implement that Act.
7. The report shows that about 8.7 percent of the population in
State consists of aged persons and proportionately a possibility of 27,896
aged persons at Khamgaon itself has been expressed. It is to be noted that
Vruddhashram with which this court is dealing is coming up in Khamgaon
Taluka of Buldhana district. Report also shows that there is no other
Vruddhashram or home for aged in entire Buldhana district. Respective
6 wp1452-99
counsel submit that there may not be one even in adjacent district. We need
not go into that aspect.
8. Report shows that land in excess of 2 hectares is made available
at nominal premium of Rs.1/- and structure upon it raised with the
government grants is in possession of respondent no.4. Respondent no. 4
has after orders of this court filed an affidavit dated 27.11.2015 on record
pointing out completion and also a communication sent to competent
authority seeking leave to permit the aged persons to stay in the building.
Advocate Chitalay submits that no such permission was granted, probably
because of pending litigation and hence the construction could not be put to
any use.
9. The respondent no. 4 is blaming his political rival and antisocial
elements to urge that building was damaged by those persons. He also
blames the present petitioner. Petitioner is denying this. It is contention of
petitioner that entire amount of government grant was never spent on
building. Respondent no. 4 submits that over and above that amount of
grant, amount from its own fund is also invested in the building by
respondent no.4.
10. We do not wish to go into any disputed question at this stage.
Coming into force of 2007 enactment mentioned supra is not in dispute.
7 wp1452-99
The report of Collector refere to it and District Social Officer who attended
hearing before the Collector has pointed out that the scheme has been
transferred to Zilla Parishad but no separate funds are provided to Zilla
Parishad to administer that scheme. Whether respondent no. 4 has spent
whole amount on that construction is the issue which we are not going
into. This land and building therefore must be made use of to commission of
Vruddhashram in discharge of statutory obligation under section 19(2) of
2007 Act.
11. If the respondents nos. 1 to 3 before this court find that
respondent no. 4 cannot now continue with Vruddhashram and it needs to
be withdrawn from it, it is open to them to proceed in the matter in
accordance with law. Zilla Parishad, Buldhana is not party before this court.
Advocate Pardhy orally sought adjournment so as to enable him to add that
Zilla Parishad as party respondent and to complete service upon it.
However, we do not find that exercise necessary. Copy of this order can be
served by petitioner upon Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Buldhana.
12. If Vruddhashram is to be looked after and provided for by Zilla
Parishad, Buldhana, as pointed out by District Social Welfare Officer to
Collector, that authority can in collaboration with respondent nos. 1 & 2
proceed to take necessary action.
8 wp1452-99
13. If the authorities withdraw Vruddhashram from respondent no. 4
for any instance of breach or violation as per law or decide to run it
departmentally, it is open to them to proceed in the matter on said lines. If
they wish to allot it to some other agency for its day-to-day maintenance,
administration etc., the concerned respondents shall keep in mind provisions
of Article 14 of Constitution of India and do so after inviting application
from all eligible parties.
14. However, as huge public investment has continued to lie idle for
over fifteen years, we direct that this exercise be completed within period of
three months from today.
15. With these directions we partly allow the petition and dispose it
of. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Hirekhan
