Bombay High Court
Shivshankar Shikshan Prasarak ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 28 June, 2016
Bench: S.S. Shinde
6469
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.6469 OF 2016
Shivshankar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Loha, Tq.Loha, Dist. Nanded,
Through its Superintendent,
Shri.Bhagwan s/o. Babulal Jorule,
Age: 42 Years, Occu: Social Work,
R/o. Loha, Tq.Loha,
District Nanded. PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary
to the Government of Maharashtra in
Women & Child Development Department,
Maharashtra State,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Principal Secretary to the
Government of Maharashtra in
Finance Department,
Maharashtra State,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
3. The Commissioner,
Women and Child Development
Maharashtra State, Pune
4. The Divisional Deputy Commissioner,
Women and Child Development
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
5. The District Women and Child
Development Officer, Nanded,
Tq. and Dist. Nanded.
::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 07:27:01 :::
6469
2
6. The Additional Chief Secretary,
Planning Department,
Maharashtra State,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. RESPONDENTS
...
Mr.N.P.Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate for the
petitioner.
Mr.P.N. Kuti, AGP for Respondent-State.
...
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
Dated: JUNE 28, 2016
...
ORAL JUDGMENT ( S.S. SHINDE, J)
Rule. Rule made returnable
forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of
the learned counsel appearing for the
parties.
2. 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,
which is placed on record with the Writ
Petition, after verifying the original record
maintained by the office of the concerned
respondents.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. It is not in dispute that the
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
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.
6. With the above observations/
directions, all the Writ Petition stands
disposed of.
7. Rule is made absolute in the above
terms.
8. The parties shall act upon
authenticated copy of this order.
(SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)
SGA
