Bombay High Court
SATISH RAJARAM PIMPARKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ORS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The petition was disposed of as withdrawn, with the Court finding no basis to grant the relief sought.
Summary
Satish Rajaram Pimparkar filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the State of Maharashtra (respondent No.5) to provide labour for completing a concrete road work under a work order. The petitioner alleged that the work was incomplete and required judicial intervention. The Court examined the Tahsildar's communication, which indicated that the work had not yet commenced, no expenditure had been incurred, and the relevant scheme (VBGRAMJI) had just started while the earlier MANREGA scheme was closed. Consequently, the Court found no basis to issue a writ directing labour provision. The petitioner, upon advice, sought to withdraw the petition, and the Court disposed of the writ petition as withdrawn.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate judicial remedy, if any, for a petition seeking direction to provide labour for a public works project that has not yet commenced?
Subjects
- writ petition
- public works
- labour provision
- administrative law
- withdrawal
- Maharashtra
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:31567-DB
1 10 wp 5829.26
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5829 OF 2026
Satish Rajaram Pimparkar .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Yogesh D. Kale, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri A. M. Phule, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5.
CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
DATE : 27TH JULY, 2026.
PER COURT :
. By this petition the petitioner seeks following reliefs :
“A) This writ petition may kindly be allowed;
B) By issuing appropriate writ, order or direction in
the like nature of writ kindly direct the respondent
No. 5 to provide the labour for completing the work
of concrete road as per the work order of the
respondent No. 5.
C) Any other just and equitable relief may kindly be
granted in favour of the present petitioner.”
2. After arguing for some time when this Court was not
inclined to grant relief, as the Tahsildar, Parner, Dist.
Ahilyanagar has by her communication dated 27.07.2026, has
instructed learned A. G. P. that the works mentioned by the
2 10 wp 5829.26
petitioner in the writ petition are yet not commenced and no
expenditure has been made on the same. Therefore, the said
work is not incomplete, so also from July 2026 VBGRAMJI
scheme has commenced and MANREGA scheme is closed.
3. Faced with is situation, learned counsel for the petitioner
on instructions seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition.
Writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn.
[ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.] [NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.]
bsb/July 26
Checking your session…