[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Nagpur Zilla Granthalaya Sangh, Nagpur ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its Chief ... on 2 February, 2026
Author: Anil Laxman Pansare
Bench: Anil Laxman Pansare
1 22-6648-2014.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.6648/2014
Nagpur Zilha Granthalaya Sangh, Nagpur Vs. State of Maharashtra,
Through its Chief Secretary and others
Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's
orders or directions and
Registrar's orders
Mr. C.F. Bhagwani, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. A.J. Gohokar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2
CORAM: ANIL L. PANSARE AND
NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ.
DATED : 2nd FEBRUARY, 2026
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition
by making the following prayers.
"1. By way of appropriate writ,
order or direction pleased to direct the
respondents to pay all the libraries qualified
for enhanced grant in aid as per G.R. dated
21.02.2012 Annexure II and quash and set
aside the letter dated 25.07.2014 Annexure
V.
2. By way of appropriate writ,
order or direction issued to the respondents
pleased to lift the ban imposed upon the
establishment of new public libraries as per
letter Annexure V, dated 25.07.2014.
3. By way of appropriate writ,
order or direction issued to the respondents
pleased to lift the ban on upgradation of
public libraries vide letter Annexure V, dated
25.07.2014.
4. By way of appropriate writ,
order or directions issued to the respondents
pleased to direct to fix the minimum wages
to the employees of public libraries,
5. By way of appropriate writ,
2 22-6648-2014.odt
order or directions issued in this behalf to
the respondents pleased to release the grant
amount as per rules of Maharashtra Public
Libraries (Recognition, for grant in aid and
building and equipment, grants) Rules 1970.
6. Award costs of this litigation to
the petitioner.
7. Any other relief which this
Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case may also be
granted to the petitioner in the interest of
justice."
2. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in its
order passed in Writ Petition No. 8226 of 2014, has
observed in paragraph 4 as under:
4. The State Government has taken a
decision on 21.2.2012 to extend 50%
additional grants in favour of 5784 libraries
from 2012-2013 onwards. It is also recorded in
the decision that, if at all there are deficiencies
in managing affairs of the libraries, those can
be complied within three months. The
concerned libraries shall be inspected
thereafter and an appropriate proposal shall be
put up before the Council of Ministers. The
decision taken clearly records for grant of
additional grants admissible from February,
2012 onwards. It is noticed that contrary to
the decision taken by the State Government,
the Desk Officer has issued clarification that
the additional grant would be admissible from
2.6.2014. Respondents were called upon to
clarify the stand of the State Government, in
respect of communication dated 25.7.2014
issued by the Desk Officer. Affidavit in reply
has been presented on behalf of respondents 1
& 2 wherein it has been stated that
communication issued by the Desk Officer is in
the nature of guidelines. It is thus clear that,
the alleged guidelines communicated by the
Desk Officer are not supported by the decision
of the Government and it does appear that the
Desk Officer, of his own, issued the guidelines
without sanction of the concerned higher
3 22-6648-2014.odt
authority or the State Government. It is further
recorded in the affidavit in reply that 5788
libraries were not found eligible during the
course of inspection because they have not
complied with the norms laid down under the
Government Policy."
3. The Court had further directed the State
Government to take necessary steps by taking an
appropriate decision and to decide the issue relating to
advancement of grant to the libraries as expeditiously as
possible. In compliance with the said directions, the
State Government has taken a decision by issuing
Government Resolution dated 05.12.2014, whereby a
50% hike has been granted and made applicable with
effect from 02.06.2014.
4. In view of the aforesaid development, the
directions issued by this Court stand complied with and
nothing survives for consideration in the present
petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
5. In the wake of the said statement, nothing
survives in the present petition. The same is dismissed.
(NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J.) (ANIL L. PANSARE, J.)
MP Deshpande
Signed by: Mr. M.P. Deshpande
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 02/02/2026 18:24:34
