1 as-wp-8892-10-9203-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION jmi WRIT PETITION NO. 8892 OF 2010. Dinkar Dharmaji Patil. ..Petitioner. vs. State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department & Ors. ...Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9203 OF 2010. Sunil Vishvasrao Khune. ..Petitioner. vs. The State of Maharashtra, through the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department & Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr. A.V. Anturkar, i/b. Shrishailya Deshmukh, for Petitioner in W.P.No. 9203/2010 and for Respondent No.3 in W.P. No.8892/2010. Mr. V.A. Gangal, a/w. Ashok Gade, for Respondent No.2 in W.P.No. 9203/2010 and for Respondent Nos. 2 & 4 in W.P.No.8892/2010. Mr. S.R. Nargolkar, Addl. G.P. For Respondent No.1 in both Petitions. Mr. Dinesh Tiwari, i/b. Dinesh Tiwari & Associates, for Petitioner in W.P. 8892/2010. .... CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 22ND DECEMBER 2010. P.C. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 8892 of 2010 is a Corporator of the Nashik Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation”). The Respondent No.3 was in charge engineer as Superintending Engineer (SE), Nashik Municipal Corporation, under the ‘Storm Water Drainage System Project’ in Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (the said scheme). Under the said scheme, the various projects for laying the underground pipelines for sewage purpose was undertaken. Under the said scheme, the project cost was originally estimated at Rs.301 crores which ultimately escalated to Rs.430 crores. The General 2 as-wp-8892-10-9203-10 Body meeting of the Municipal Corporation passed a Resolution for independent inquiry into the alleged irregularities for the implementation of the said project and also passed a Resolution dated 28th May 2010, suspending the Respondent No.3. Thereafter, the State Government by its communication dated 28th June 2010 also decided to initiate inquiry against the alleged irregularities for the implementation of the above project. The Petitioner-Corporator therefore, filed Writ Petition No.8892 of 2010 challenging the aforestated decision of the State Government, on the ground that when the Municipal Corporation has already initiated an inquiry, the State Government could not have directed holding any parallel inquiry. The Petitioner also submitted that the Municipal Corporation may not take any further steps for reinstatement of the Respondent No.3 - Superintending Engineer and that the charges against the Superintending Engineer be enquired by an independent Investigating Agency. 2. The Respondent No.3 submitted his representation dated 5th June 2010 to the State Government under section 451 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (B.P.M.C.Act) challenging the action taken against him by the Nashik Municipal Corporation. Since the State Government failed to decide the representation of the Respondent No. 3, the Respondent No.3 has filed Writ Petition No 9203 of 2010 inter-alia seeking directions against the State Government to consider his representation under section 451 of the B.P.M.C. Act. 3. The learned AGP states that the inquiry ordered by the State Government has already made some progress and that the inquiry initiated by the State Government need not be injuncted. The learned Counsel for the Nashik Municipal Corporation states that the Corporation could not expedite the inquiry initiated against the Superintending Engineer as it could not get the Chief Engineer to hold such an inquiry. However, it is submitted that the Corporation shall be proceeding with an independent inquiry irrespective of the inquiry to be held by the State Government. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we dispose of 3 as-wp-8892-10-9203-10 these Petitions in terms of the following directions more or less on the basis of the consensus arrived at amongst the parties : (i) Before taking any final decision on the representation of Respondent No.3-Mr. Sunil Vishvasrao Khune against his order of suspension, the State Government shall give an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 8892 of 2010 i.e. Dinkar Dharmaji Patil and shall also consider the representation of the Municipal Commissioner of the Nashik Municipal Corporation and shall take the decision on the representation of Respondent No.3 by 21st January 2011. (ii) In case the State Government decides to set aside the order of suspension against the Respondent No.3, such order shall not be implemented for a period of two weeks from the date of its communication to all the above parties. (iii) The Nashik Municipal Corporation shall be at liberty to proceed with the inquiry initiated against the Respondent No.3 and the decision of the State Government in the inquiry initiated by it will not come in the way of the inquiry commenced by the Nashik Municipal Corporation which shall arrive at its own conclusion. (iv) All the contentions of the parties are kept open. 5. The Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of. Parties to act on authenticated copy of this order. CHIEF JUSTICE [ S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. ]