Bombay High Court
Santosh Arjun Manghale ,Khandala ... vs State Of Maha.Thr.Secy,Dpet Of ... on 8 May, 2017
Bench: B.R. Gavai
1 wp3702.00
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3702 OF 2000
1) Santosh s/o Arjun Manghale,
Aged 36 years, Occ. - Agriculturist,
R/o Khandala, Po. : Anjani (Bk.),
Tahsil - Mehkar, District Buldana.
2) Suresh s/o Namdeo Adhao,
Aged 48 years, Occ. - Agriculturist
and Member Panchayat Samiti,
Mehkar, R/o Anjani (Bk.), District
Buldana.
3) Vishwanath s/o Motiram Pakhare,
Aged 45 years, Occ. - Agriculturist
and Member Panchayat Samiti,
Mehkar, R/o Pangarkhed, Tahsil -
Mehkar, District - Buldana.
4) Kisan s/o Chandrabhan Mapari,
Aged 40 years, Occ. - Agriculturist,
R/o Lonar, Tahsil - Lonar, District -
Buldana. .... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1) State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Department
of Planning, Mantralaya Annexe,
Mumbai - 32.
2) Hon'ble Guardian Minister for
Buldana District and Minister for -(Dismissed as per
State Water Resources Department, order dt. 20-6-2003)
etc., Mantralaya Annexe, Mumbai-32.
::: Uploaded on - 11/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/05/2017 00:14:33 :::
2 wp3702.00
3) Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Buldana.
4) Executive Engineer (Irrigation),
Zilla Parishad, Buldana.
5) Block Development Officer (Upgrade),
&
Secretary of Co-ordination Committee,
Panchayat Samiti, Mehkar, District -
Buldana.
6) Block Development Office (Upgrade),
&
Secretary of Co-ordination Committee,
Panchayat Samiti, Lonar, District -
Buldana.
7) District Collector (E.G.S.),
Buldana. .... RESPONDENTS
______________________________________________________________
Shri P.B. Patil, Advocate for the petitioners,
Shri A.R. Chutke,A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 7,
None for respondent Nos.3 to 6.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND
N.W. SAMBRE, JJ.
DATED : 8
MAY, 2017.
th
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : B.R. GAVAI, J.)
The petitioners challenge the allotment of wells to the
marginal farmers and backward class as well as weaker section. It is
the contention of the petitioners that the list of the beneficiaries, which
3 wp3702.00
was prepared came to be changed at the instance of the Hon'ble
Guardian Minister from Buldana District.
2. It, therefore, be seen that the petition is basically based on
the allegations of mala fides. However, the allegations made against
the Hon'ble Guardian Minister are in official capacity and not in
personal capacity. Though the Hon'ble Guardian Minister was
impleaded in his official capacity, the petition already stands dismissed
against him. It is settled law that the allegations of mala fides cannot
be entertained unless a person against whom the allegations are made
is party to the petition and the specific allegations in that regard are
pleaded in the petition. In lack of such pleadings and as the petition
already stands dismissed against the Hon'ble Guardian Minister, the
point remains that whether the petition can be entertained.
3. In any case, any interference at this stage cannot restore
position of 17 years back. In that view of the matter, it will not be
appropriate for this Court to interfere in the extra ordinary jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is
dismissed.
4 wp3702.00
Rule stands discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
adgokar
