Bombay High Court
AJAY MANOHAR SHELKEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The PIL is disposed of, with the petitioner free to pursue any appropriate legal remedies against the decision of the respondents.
Summary
The petitioner, Ajay Manohar Shelke, filed a public interest litigation challenging the delay and handling of his complaint dated 16 September 2019 by certain respondents. The respondents (Nos. 3 and 4) submitted an affidavit-in-reply stating that they had finally considered the grievance and issued the requisite orders. The petitioner acknowledged the decision but argued that the respondents had been indulgent in taking a long time to decide, and sought further relief. The Court observed that once a decision has been rendered, the petitioner may pursue any appropriate legal remedies against that decision if dissatisfied. Consequently, the Court disposed of the PIL, granting the petitioner liberty to take further steps as provided by law, and ordered the refund of Rs.10,000 deposited by the petitioner to the High Court Legal Services Sub‑Committee, Aurangabad.
Issues considered
- What relief, if any, is available to a petitioner in a public interest litigation after the underlying administrative complaint has been finally decided?
Subjects
- Public Interest Litigation
- Administrative decision
- Remedies
- Petition disposal
- Legal Services
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:13986-DB
905-pil-7-2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
905 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.7 OF 2020
Ajay Manohar Shelke
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
...
Mr. V. Y. Bhide, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. V. M. Kagne, AGP for Respondents/State.
...
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &
HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.
DATE : 27 MARCH 2026
ORDER (Per Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.) :
. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner. We have also perused
the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent Nos.3 and 4. Perusal of the
affidavit-in-reply makes it clear that the main grievance of the petitioner,
pertaining to his complaint dated 16.09.2019 and the issues raised
therein, has been taken into consideration by respondent Nos.3 and 4
and accordingly, they have taken final decision and have passed
necessary orders thereupon.
2. The learned Advocate for the petitioner does not dispute the same,
except to state that, even after a long period of time, the respondents
have shown indulgence in deciding the complaint. In that view of the
[1]
905-pil-7-2020.odt
matter, when now the complaint is decided and the decision is taken, it is
open for the petitioner to pursue his appropriate remedies against the
said decision, if not satisfied.
3. With the aforesaid observations, the Public Interest Litigation
stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate steps
as available in law.
4. The amount of Rs.10,000/- deposited by the petitioner in view of
the order dated 05.02.2020 be credited with the High Court Legal
Services Sub Committee, Aurangabad.
[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ]
JUDGE JUDGE
scm
[2]
Checking your session…