ASN 1 PIL-177.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.177 OF 2009 Shri. V.D.Barve. ..Petitioner. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr. ..Respondents. Mr. Uday Warunjikar for the petitioner. Mr.A.B. Vyagyani, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Mr. N.V. Walawalkar, Sr. Advocate i/by Mr. G.H. Keluskar for Respondent No.2. Mr. S.A. Masal for Respondent No.3. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C. J. AND GIRISH S. GODBOLE, J. DATE : 14 th June, 2011 PC: Leave to amend prayer clause (a). 2 In this Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the State of Maharashtra to exercise powers under Section 452 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the alleged illegalities on the part of respondent No.2 Sangli Miraj and Kupwad City Municipal Corporation in investing its funds in contravention of the provisions of Section 92 of the Act. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to ASN 2 PIL-177.sxw initiate necessary action against the officers of respondent No.2 Corporation in the light of the facts narrated in the memo of the petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the then Administrator of respondent No.2 Corporation closed down the bank accounts of respondent No.2 Corporation in different banks as well as in post offices and invested the funds of the Municipal Corporation with respondent No.3 Vasant Dada Shetkari Shahakri Bank Ltd. at Sangli, which is a co-operative bank. It is submitted that proviso to sub section (1) of Section 92 specifically provides that the amount of money to be deposited in an approved co-operative bank shall not exceed such amount as may be specified by the State Government generally or specially in respect of any approved co-operative bank; that the investments made by the then Administrator of respondent No.2 Corporation in respondent No.3-Bank were in violation of the provisions of the said proviso and therefore, the State Government should take action against the Officer who was Administrator of respondent No.2 Corporation at the relevant time when the decision of the Administrator to make such investments was taken. It is further submitted that the elected councilors of respondent No.2 Corporation were also liable for action under Section 452 of the Act as they continued to maintain the deposits of the funds of the Corporation in respondent No.3 bank although it was clear from 2004 onwards that the respondent No.3 has become a weak bank. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on reply dated 2nd December, 2008 from the Chief Auditor of respondent No.2 Corporation indicating that the investments with respondent No.3 bank were made at the relevant time without obtaining ASN 3 PIL-177.sxw sanction under Section 92 of the Act. However, after making the aforesaid grievances, the learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to state that the petitioner has made any representation to the State Government to take action against the concerned officers or the Administrator or to take action under Section 452 of the Act. 3 In view of the above, we dispose of the petition with the direction that if the petitioner makes any representation for taking action against the Municipal Corporation or against the Councilors of the respondent No.2 Corporation within three weeks from today, then the State Government shall consider and decide such representation as expeditiously as possible and in any case within three months from the date of this order. 4 It is clarified that we have not gone into the merits of the allegations made by the petitioner and we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. CHIEF JUSTICE GIRISH S. GODBOLE, J.