Bombay High Court
Anil S/O Shyamsunder Agre And ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 16 August, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
cwp374.15
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 374 OF 2015
1. Anil s/o Shyamsunder Agre,
age 44 years, occupation -
Transport Business and Social
Worker, r/o Anand Palace,
Flat No. 302, Old Pardi Naka,
Bhandara Road, Nagpur,
District - Nagpur.
2. Shri Kailash Khedikar,
age - Major, occupation -
Transport Business, r/o
Lalganj Gujari, Nagpur,
District - Nagpur.
3. Shri Hareshkumar Mishra,
age - Major, occupation -
Construction, r/o Prem Nagar,
Nagpur.
4. Shri T. Krishna Mohanrao,
age - Major, occupation -
Construction, r/o Shanti
Nagar, Nagpur.
5. Shri Sanjay Channor,
age - Major, occupation -
Construction, r/o Shanti
Nagar, Nagpur.
6. Ujjwal Narendra Sood,
age 45, occupation -
Business, r/o Plot No. 2162,
Flat No. 201, Akash
Cooperative Society, Old
Bhandara Road, Wardhman
Nagar, Nagpur. ... PETITIONERS
::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2016 00:38:10 :::
cwp374.15
2
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
through Transport Commissioner,
New Administrative Building,
4th Floor, Near Ambedkar Garden,
Government Colony, Bandre,
Mumbai 400 051.
2. The Chief Secretary,
Department of Transport,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
3. The Divisional Transport Officer,
Lal Godown, Indora, Nagpur.
4. Sub-Divisional R.T.O. Office,
Gondia, District - Gondia.
5. Director General of Anti
Corruption Bureau, Mumbai.
6. Anti Corruption Bureau,
Civil Lines, Nagpur,
District - Nagpur.
7. Deputy Superintendent,
Anti Corruption Bureau,
Gondia.
8. The Collector, Gondia.
9. The Collector, Nagpur.
10.The Collector, Bhandara.
11.The Collector, Gadchiroli.
12.The Collector, Chandrapur.
13.The Chief Commissioner of
Income Tax, Income Tax Office,
Telangkhedi Road, Civil Lines,
::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2016 00:38:10 :::
cwp374.15
3
Nagpur.
14.Superintendent of Police,
Nagpur.
15.Superintendent of Police,
Bhandara.
16.Superintendent of Police,
Gondia.
17.Superintendent of Police,
Chandrapur.
18.Superintendent of Police,
Gadchiroli.
19.Assistant Inspector,
Shri Nitin Ukey, Division Office,
R.T.O. Branch, Nagpur.
20.The Divisional Commissioner,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
21.The Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati Division, Amravati. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mrs. K.S. Joshi, APP for respondent Nos. 1 to 12, 14 to 18, 20 & 21.
S/Shri S.N. & N.S. Bhattad, Advocate for respondent No. 13.
.....
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
AUGUST 16, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
Heard Shri Bhandarkar, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Mrs. Joshi, learned APP for respondent Nos. 1 to
cwp374.15
12, 14 to 18, 20 & 21 and Shri Bhattad, learned counsel for
respondent No. 13.
2. The petitioners before this Court pointed out that
large scale misappropriation of public revenue occurs through
illegal and excessive excavation of Sand. Shri Bhandarkar,
learned counsel submits that mostly it occurs during night time.
Our attention is also invited to various orders passed by this
Court from time to time.
3. We have seen orders dated 20.04.2016 and last
order dated 01.08.2016.
4. The learned APP adds that night surveillance has
helped in curbing the menace and deploying drone in Nagpur
District has also resulted in avoiding loss to public revenue. She
states that about 5000 vehicles indulging in illegal excavation
have been seized by the State Government and action against
the excavators has been taken.
cwp374.15
5. Shri Bhandarkar, learned counsel submits that
surveillance during night hours through human agency has got
its own limitations and, therefore, if drones are deployed
throughout the State, menace can be effectively avoided.
6. The learned APP points out that this is a criminal
writ petition in which limited issue falls for consideration.
7. However, after hearing respective counsel, we find
that the orders passed by this Court and assistance rendered by
the petitioners as also by the Government has resulted in some
benefit to public revenue. If drones can be deployed
throughout the State and particularly during night time, it may
avoid necessity of involvement of human agency in the night
surveillance and that may also result in saving of public
revenue, as such, government servants or members of team
who perform night surveillance may not be required to be paid
any remuneration or overtime. That amount can be
conveniently used for procuring and deploying drones. The
Government may even consider other alternatives for procuring
cwp374.15
and providing such drones during night time.
8. As we find that this exercise may require some more
thought and also probably policy decision, we direct
Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to look into this order and various
orders passed by this Court in the matter, to hear the
petitioners or their representative and then to evolve suitable
policy decision in this respect within next four months.
9. It appears that the petitioners have attempted to
point out unaccounted income of Respondent No. 19. Their
submission is, he possesses income disproportionate to known
sources. It appears that because of orders of this Court, the
Income Tax department has looked into his financial affairs and
the department has reported that it could not find anything
adverse. Similarly, Anti Corruption trap laid by Respondent
No. 5 could not succeed. There is material on record which,
according to the learned APP, reveals that allegations made by
the petitioners are without any merit.
cwp374.15
10. The material placed on record needs to be looked
into by the Competent Authority viz., Respondent Nos. 5 & 6
and that authority has to decide whether any cause for
investigation is made out or not. It will be futile on the part of
this Court to record any finding at this stage. Hence, we direct
that Authority to look into the material produced and to take
necessary decision within a period of six weeks from the date of
communication of this order to it.
11. With these directions and by making Rule absolute
in terms of interim orders already operating, we dispose of the
present writ petition. No order as to costs.
12. Needless to mention that the petitioners are at
liberty to approach again, if any cause of action arises.
JUDGE JUDGE
******
*GS.
cwp374.15
C E R T I F I C A T E
"I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct
copy of original signed Judgment."
Uploaded by : G. Shamdasani
Uploaded on : 16.08.2016.
