Saturday, 02, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Gramin Vikas Mahila Bahu ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 3555 Bom

Citation : 2016 Latest Caselaw 3555 Bom
Judgement Date : 4 July, 2016

Bombay High Court
Gramin Vikas Mahila Bahu ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 4 July, 2016
Bench: S.S. Shinde
                                                                      6958.16WP
                                            1




                                                                        
                                
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 




                                                
                           BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                     WRIT PETITION NO. 6958 OF 2016 

              Gramin Vikas Mahila Bahu-Uddeshiya 
              Sevabhavi Sanstha, Nathapur, 




                                               
              Tq. & Dist. Beed 
              Through its Secretary 
                                                PETITIONER
                      VERSUS




                                       
              1.       The State of Maharashtra,  
                             
                       Through Principal Secretary 
                       Women and Child Development 
                       Department, Mantralaya, 
                            
                       Mumbai - 32.  

              2.       The Commissioner of 
                       Women and Child Development 
                       Mantralaya, Mumbai. 
      


              3.       The Divisional Deputy Commissioner,  
   



                       Women and Child Development 
                       Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.  

              4.       The District Women and Child 





                       Development Officer, Beed, 
                       Dist. Beed.                 RESPONDENTS
                                     ...
              Mr. R.A. Deshmukh h/f Mr. S.S. Thombre,  Advocate 
              for the petitioner.  





              Ms. M.A. Deshpande, AGP for Respondent/State. 
                                     ...
              CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.

Dated: JULY 4, 2016 ...

ORAL JUDGMENT ( S.S. SHINDE, J)

Not on board. Taken on board.





                                                                             6958.16WP





                                                                              
              2.               Rule.       Rule       made             returnable 

forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of

the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. It is submitted that the concerned Respondent Authorities have made

assessment of the expenditure incurred by the

petitioner in respect of the years concerned and after assessment, the order has been

issued indicating the amount therein, for which the petitioner is entitled as per the Government policy. The petitioner has placed

on record copy of the assessment order signed by the respondent authorities concerned. It

is submitted that though there is assessment from the year 2011 onwards, as a matter of

fact, the amount for which the petitioner is entitled, has not been disbursed in favour of the petitioner. It is submitted that the concerned Department has disbursed the amount

to various similarly situated institutions, relying upon the assessment orders. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Respondents may be directed to disburse the amounts, due and payable as per the Assessment Order,

6958.16WP

which is placed on record with the Writ Petition, after verifying the original record

maintained by the office of the concerned respondents.

4. On the other hand the learned A.G.P. appearing for the Respondent/State submits that the Departments of Planning and Finance

have not approved the proposals forwarded by

the concerned Department i.e. the Department of Woman and Child Development, for sanction

and disbursement of the amount, and the said Departments have raised certain queries. He prays that the hearing of this Petition may

be deferred and six weeks time may be given to the Respondent/State, so as to carry out

reassessment and also ask the concerned department to cure the deficiencies/ clear

the doubts pointed out by the Planning and Finance Departments.

5. We have heard the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner and learned A.G.P. appearing for the Respondent- State. With their able assistance, we have perused the pleadings in the Petition and annexures thereto.

6. It is not in dispute that the

6958.16WP

concerned Department by making budgetary provision after issuing Government Resolution

has disbursed substantial amount in favour of some of the institutions similarly situated like the petitioner. It, prima facie, appears

that there is some difference of opinion between the concerned Department i.e. Department of Woman and Child Development on

one hand and the Departments of Planning and

Finance on the other about disbursement of the amounts claimed. It is an internal matter

of the State Government and all the concerned in the process will have to resolve the same at their level. Therefore, we are of the

opinion that the ends of justice would be met

in case the Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra is directed to look into the subject matter of this Writ Petition and

direct the concerned departments to ensure the disbursement of amounts as per the entitlement of the petitioner, after verifying the original record maintained by

the concerned Respondent Authorities, who have issued the assessment orders in favour of the petitioner and also similarly situated institutions throughout the State, and if necessary, also by verifying the record maintained by the petitioner -institution, as

6958.16WP

expeditiously as possible, and preferably within 10 weeks from today, and those

institutions who are found eligible as per government policy then prevailing, the amounts should be disbursed to them within

two weeks thereafter. However, the entire exercise should be done within 12 weeks from today. We make it clear that the Heads of the

Departments of Woman and Child Development,

Planning and Finance Department and the Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra would be

jointly responsible for implementation of the directions issued hereinabove.

7. With the above observations/ directions, all the Writ Petition stands

disposed of.

8. Rule is made absolute in the above

terms.

9. The parties shall act upon authenticated copy of this order.

                       Sd/-                                    Sd/-
              (SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.)                 (S.S. SHINDE, J.)



              SGA





 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter