wp247.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.247 OF 2011 1) Tinaji s/o Ramrao Kale, R/o-Yerandeshwar, Tq-Purna, Dist-Parbhani, 2) Vidyasagar s/o Pundlikrao Chikhalikar, R/o-Shivajinagar, Parbhani, Tq. & Dist-Parbhani, 3) Shivajirao s/o Daulatrao More, R/o-Bhogaon, Tq-Jintur, Dist-Parbhani, 4) Mohan s/o Madhavrao Phad, R/o-Kalyan Nagar, Parbhani, Tq. & Dist-Parbhani, 5) Nanasaheb s/o Laxmanrao Raut, R/o-Charthana, Tq-Jintur, Dist-Parbhani. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Rural Development Dept., Mantralaya, Mumbai, 2) The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, wp247.11 2 3) The District Collector, Parbhani and Secretary of D.P.D.C. Zilla Parishad, Parbhani, 4) The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Parbhani, 5) The President, Zilla Parishad, Parbhani and Chairman of Water Management and Sanitary Committee, Zilla Parishad, Parbhani, 6) The Additional Chief Executive Officer And the Member-Secretary of Water Management and Sanitary Committee, Zilla Parishad, Parbhani, 7) The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Zilla Parishad, Parbhani. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.S.S. Thombre Advocate for Petitioners. Shri. B.V Wagh, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Shri.V.S. Panpatte Advocate for Respondent Nos.4, 6 and 7. Shri.P.R. Patil Advocate for Respondent No.5. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 15TH FEBRUARY, 2011. wp247.11 3 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The Petitioners have prayed for following reliefs: "B) By issuing writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or directions in the like nature, the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to obtain the survey from the concerned authorities as per the government policy for construction of the K.T. weirs and minor irrigation projects as per the major head 2702 District Planning Committee, Parbhani and thereafter to prepare the plan to construct the projects as per the amount sanctioned by the District Planning Committee and for that purpose issue necessary orders; C] By issuing writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or directions in the like nature, the District Collector and Secretary of the wp247.11 4 District Planning Committee may kindly be directed not to accord sanction to the resolution dated 14.09.2010 submitted by the Zilla Parishad, Parbhani and for4 that purpose issue necessary orders; D] By issuing appropriate writ, order or directions in the like nature, the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 may kindly be directed to initiate an inquiry against the Water Management and Sanitary Committee, Zilla Parishad, Parbhani for passing such illegal resolution and to take appropriate action against them as per the provisions of the law." 2. On 18th January, 2011, the learned A.G.P., on instructions, stated that that the representation filed by the Petitioner Exhibit 'O' dated 16th December, 2010 would be decided. Thereafter the matter was adjourned to 20th January, 2011. Affidavit in reply is filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 4, 6 and 7. In Para 5 of wp247.11 5 the reply, the deponent contends that: "5] I say that it is true that for the financial year 2010-11 the District Planning Committee has sanctioned amount of Rs.256.40 lacs for irrigation project and amount of Rs.250 lacs for Kolhapur type Weirs under major head 2702. But as per the Govt. Circular dated 6th November, 2004 the Zilla Parishad has been already empowered to undertake works for irrigation purpose for the lands 0 to 100 hectares and as per the said Circular, guidelines have been issued that cement bandharas and K.T. Weirs are similar and therefore for the land below 20 hectares under irrigation cement bandharas are to be undertaken by the Zilla Parishad. Therefore, the respondent no.5 - committee as per the powers conferred on it by various G.R.s and Circulars has sanctioned the proposed works by Resolution No.163 and 164 in its meeting dated wp247.11 6 14.10.2010 and the proposed sites of the works therein for the year 2010-2011 of which recommendation ha been made, are surveyed by the competent authorities and not by the Zilla Parishad authorities and technical sanction has also been granted for the same by the concerned authorities. Respondent no.7 has sought the feasibility of the proposed works with its technical approval from the Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation (Local Sector) Jalna. This authority has submitted feasibility report to Zilla Parishad Parbhani. In which 12 cement bandharas and 11 Irrigation tank were reported as unfeasible. Those works which are reported infeasible will not be executed or implemented by the administration of the Zilla Parishad Parbhani. The report of Superintending Engineer (Local Sector) Jalna is annexed as Exhibit "R-5". Those works which are reported as feasible and technically approved by Executive Engineer wp247.11 7 (Local Sector) has already been referred to competent authority of Command Area Development Authority for their clarification. Those works which are approved by the competent authority will only executed and implemented by the administration and Zilla Parishad." 3. Shri. Patil, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.5 submits that in accordance with the guidelines issued by the State, the Resolution is passed. The Petitioner was one of the member of the Planning Committee. The counsel for the Petitioner disputes the statement of fact made by the deponent in the affidavit in reply. 4. We have perused the provisions of Section 267-A of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961. 5. The learned A.G.P. submits that within SIX WEEKS from today, the representation filed by wp247.11 8 the Petitioners annexed at Exhibit "O", pending before the Commissioner would be decided, on its own merits. The Petitioners, in addition are entitled to file comprehensive representation/ application before the Commissioner in respect of the issues raised in this Petition. If the same is filed, we direct the Commissioner to pass appropriate orders on the same, after hearing the parties concerned, on its own merits, within SIX WEEKS from today. 6. With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/FEB11/wp247.11