1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No.3441/2009 (Grampanchayat Satephal, through its Sarpanch ..V/s.. The State of Maharashtra +1) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. S.S. Khadse, counsel for petitioner. Mr. D.B. Patel, A.G.P. for respondent no.1. Mr. P.B. Patil, counsel for respondent no.2. CORAM : D.D. SINHA & F.M. REIS J. DATE : 5 th NOVEMBER , 2009 . Heard Mr. Khadse learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. Patel learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1 and Mr. Patil learned counsel for respondent no.2. The grievance of the petitioner is in respect of communication dated 19/3/2009 issued by respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for respondent no.2 – Zilla Parishad submitted that the entire work was done for the development of village Satephal in accordance with procedure and law. It is contended that administrative sanction was given by the Chief Executive Officer to start the work vide order dated 29/5/2009. Tenders were called by giving public advertisement dated 9/6/2009. The work was completed and work progress report certificate was issued by 2 Executive Engineer, Amravati dated 6/10/2009 which shows that out of work of Rs.9,00,000/- work of Rs.8,36,000/- was already completed. It is contended that petitioner Gampanchayat was well aware about the development work which was carried out by the Public Works Department however, it did not approach this Court when the work was going on and approached this Court when the development work was completed. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for respondent no.2 further submitted that the development work pertains to improving of the drainage system, road and other infrastructure facilities. The learned counsel for petitioner does not have any dispute so far as the development activities undertaken by the Public Works Department are concerned however, has some grievance about the village fund. We have considered the rival contentions on the backdrop of the above referred facts. It appears that development activities undertaken by the Public Works Department ultimately resulted in development of the village concerned. It appears that drainage system has been improved and quality of roads is also improved. The State Government has given no objection for the development work. It is also brought to the notice of the Court by the learned A.G.P. that the above activities were permitted to be carried out by the Pubic Works Department since the Grampanchayat did not have sufficient means to carry out the said activities. Considering the overall view of the matter, we are of the view that the development activities undertaken by the Public Works Department have benefited the village and the 3 villagers and resulted in serving the public cause. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for showing interference. Writ Petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Tambaskar.