Bombay High Court

SAVITA SHIVAJI GAIKEversusTHE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The petition is dismissed as infructuous because the relief sought cannot be granted after the scheme has ended.

Summary

Savita Shivaji Gaike filed a writ petition in 2012 seeking a mandamus directing the authorities to extend her proposal under the Prime Minister’s Employment Generation Programme (PMEGP) and to withhold the margin money/subsidy for her poultry seed project. The petitioner also asked the court to consider her proposal for the 2011‑12 financial year. The petition remained pending for several years, and by the time of hearing in September 2026 the PMEGP scheme for that year had already concluded. The court noted that the petitioner could not be contacted and that the relief sought was no longer viable. Consequently, the judges held that the petition was infructuous and dismissed it. The dismissal was based on the lapse of time and the fact that the scheme was over, rendering the relief sought moot.

Issues considered

Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to direct extension of a PMEGP proposal when the scheme year has already elapsed

Subjects

writ of mandamus
PMEGP
lapse of time
infructuous petition
administrative law
public scheme

Judgment

                                        (1)                       903-WP-2928-2012




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                   903 WRIT PETITION NO. 2928 OF 2012

                          Savita Shivaji Gaike
                                VERSUS
                      The Union Of India And Ors
                                   ...
Mr. Bhushan V. Virdhe, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. R. S. Sarvadnya, Senior Panel Counsel, for Respondent No.1.

                                     CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT &
                                                  JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.

                                     DATE       : 22nd SEPTEMBER 2026.

PC :-

1.      Learned Advocate for the petitioner informs that he could not

establish the contact with petitioner. Office note shows that by efflux of

time, the prayers in this petition have become infructuous.

2.      Prayer clauses (B) and (C) read as under:

“(B). By issuing writ of Mandamus or any writ, order or direction in like nature the
respondent No.2 & 3 may kindly directed to extend the proposal of petitioner under
the PMEGP-Scheme and withheld the money (Margin Money/Subsidy) sanctioned
for the project proposal of Poultry Seed of the petitioner.

(C). By issuing writ, order or direction in like nature the respondent No.2 & 3 may
kindly be directed to consider the proposal under PMEGP scheme of present
petitioner for the year 2011-12.”
                                          (2)                     903-WP-2928-2012




3.           From the prayers, it is clear that it was only a proposal made to the

respondents/authorities which was sought to be decided at the earliest.

Petition is filed and pending since 2012. By now, nothing remains in the

petition to be adjudicated or decided. The scheme is already over in

2012.

4.           Considering above, this Court finds that petition deserves to be

dismissed. The same is hereby dismissed.



     [JITENDRA JAIN, J.]                           [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]
D.A.ETHAPE

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…