GODHAJI S/O. BABUSING CHAVHANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:39939-DB

                                                                         CRI. WP 1920-19




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                        CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1920 OF 2019


               Godhaji s/o Babusing Chavhan,
               Age : 57 years, Occu.: Service,
               R/o.: Islapur, Tq. Kinwat,
               District : Nanded                                ….   PETITIONER

               VERSUS

          1.   The State of Maharashtra,
               Through : its Principal Secretary,
               Forest Department, Mantralay,
               Mumbai – 400032

          2.   The Principal Chief Conservator Forests,
               (Social Forestry), Maharashtra State,
               Pune, Central Building, Ground Floor,
               Pune – 411001

          3.   S. V. Mankawar,
               Age : Major, Occu.: Divisional Forest Officer,
               Social Forestry Department, Nanded,
               Tq. & District : Nanded

          4.   K. Y. Shaikh,
               Age : Major,
               Occu.: Asst. Conservator of Forest,
               Social Forestry Department, Nanded,
               Tq. & Dist. : Nanded                             ….   RESPONDENTS

                                            ….
          Ms. Poonam V. Bodke Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner
          Ms. M. N. Ghanekar, APP for Respondent Nos.1 & 2
          Mr. V. D. Sapkal, Senior counsel a/w Mr. A. D. Khedkar &
          Mr. B. R. Salgude i/b Mr. Mahesh S. Taur, Advocate for Respondent
          Nos.3 & 4
                                            ….



                  VS Maind/                                           Page|1
                                                            CRI. WP 1920-19




                   CORAM              : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE &
                                        VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.

                   RESERVED ON   : 29/08/2026
                   PRONOUNCED ON : 31/08/2026

ORDER :


1.   Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally at the

admission stage, with the consent of the learned counsel for the

petitioner, the learned APP for respondent–State and the learned senior

counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4.


2.   By way of this writ petition, the petitioner contends that

respondent No.1, i.e. the State of Maharashtra, had launched a

scheme, namely, the Smriti Udyan Yojana, with a view to create one

Smriti Park in every district for generating awareness regarding

plantation. Accordingly, at Village Bondar, Taluka and District Nanded,

one Smriti Park was created over an area of 10 hectares from the funds

contributed by donors. The petitioner was one of the donors, having

donated an amount of Rs.500/- towards the plantation of mango trees

in the name of his late grandfather, Lalu Gopa Chavhan and

accordingly, he planted mango trees therein. The said scheme was in

existence until the end of the year 2014-2015. However, thereafter,

respondent No.3, without informing the donors and behind their back,

abruptly discontinued the said scheme by launching another scheme,
       VS Maind/                                         Page|2
                                                               CRI. WP 1920-19




namely, the Late Uttamrao Patil Biodiversity Scheme and created a

park at the same place where the Smriti Park had been established,

allegedly by damaging all the trees that had earlier been planted

therein.       As such, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to

respondent Nos.1 and 2 to conduct an enquiry into the matter, register

an offence against respondent Nos.3 and 4 for allegedly siphoning off

funds under the Smriti Park Scheme and take immediate steps for

recovery of the said funds along with interest.


3.   Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that respondent

No.3 had abruptly discontinued the earlier scheme and introduced the

subsequent scheme on the same land by cutting down the trees

planted under the earlier scheme and misappropriating the funds

received from the donors. According to her, criminal action needs to be

initiated against respondent Nos.3 and 4 in respect thereof.


4.   On the contrary, the learned APP, by filing an affidavit-in-reply,

contended that the park established under the Smriti Udyan Yojana at

Village Bondar is still in existence and that proper accounts of the

amounts received from 162 donors have been maintained. According to

her, the Social Forestry Division, Nanded, was already in possession of

10 hectares of land, out of which a Smriti Park was established over 2

hectares and the Smriti Udyan Yojana was implemented over 4.79


           VS Maind/                                       Page|3
                                                               CRI. WP 1920-19




hectares. Accordingly, the entire land was for the said scheme only.

Thereafter, pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 16/06/2015,

another project, namely, the Late Uttamrao Patil Biodiversity Park

Scheme, was implemented in the year 2015 at a different location.

Thus, she submitted that the petition filed by the petitioner is frivolous

and deserves to be dismissed.


5.   On the other hand, learned senior counsel Mr. V. D. Sapkal,

appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4, also opposed the

submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and pointed out that

during the pendency of this writ petition, a committee was appointed to

enquire into the complaint made by the petitioner. According to him,

no substance was found in the allegations made by the petitioner in the

said complaint, which are substantially similar to those made in the

present writ petition.    He further submitted that each and every

allegation made by the petitioner was duly considered and none of the

allegations was found to be substantiated. He also placed reliance on

the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Aleque Padamsee and

Others v. Union of India and Others, 2007 DGLS (SC) 837, wherein

the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that in the event of inaction on the

part of the police, the remedy of filing a complaint before the learned

Magistrate is available to the petitioner. Thus, he submitted that if at

all the petitioner seeks criminal prosecution of respondent Nos.3 and 4,
        VS Maind/                                          Page|4
                                                             CRI. WP 1920-19




he ought to approach the concerned police station. He laid emphasis

on the fact that when no substance was found in the complaint made

by the petitioner, there arises no question of initiating criminal

prosecution against respondent Nos.3 and 4.


6.   Admittedly, the complaint dated 15/06/2019, wherein allegations

similar to those made in the present writ petition were raised, was

considered by the Enquiry Committee comprising the Conservator of

Social Forestry Department, Nanded, as a member; the Forest Range

Officer, as a member; and the Assistant Conservator of Forest, Social

Forestry Department, Nanded, as the President of the Enquiry

Committee.         The Committee found no substance in the allegations

made in the complaint by the petitioner.


7.   Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no

opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner during the said

enquiry, but the fact remains that the Committee has already

considered the complaint and found no substance in the allegations. It

was, therefore, open to the petitioner to challenge the said decision.

However, despite having knowledge of the same, the petitioner did not

even seek amendment of the present writ petition to challenge the

decision of the Committee dated 15/02/2020. At this stage, such an

amendment cannot be permitted, as a civil writ petition would be the


       VS Maind/                                         Page|5
                                                             CRI. WP 1920-19




appropriate remedy for challenging the said report.   Moreover, even if

the petitioner seeks to initiate criminal prosecution, there must be

some foundational material for initiating such proceedings. In the

present case, when the Committee, upon considering the complaint

made by the petitioner, has given a clean chit to respondent Nos.3 and

4, in our opinion, there is no foundation for the petitioner to initiate

criminal prosecution against them.


8.    In view of the aforesaid observations, the prayers made in the

present writ petition need no consideration.      Accordingly, the writ

petition is dismissed.


9.    Rule is discharged.




     [VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV]                [SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE]
               JUDGE                                JUDGE




        VS Maind/                                         Page|6