Bombay High Court
SHRIKANT RAJKUMAR WANKHEDEversusCOMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH SERVICES AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
A writ of mandamus cannot be issued where the petitioner has not provided adequate evidence of the alleged delay or non‑submission of the enquiry report.
Summary
The petitioner, Shrikant Rajkumar Wankhede, sought a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to complete an enquiry into alleged illegality and fraud at a primary health centre and submit the report to the first respondent. The petitioner alleged that despite the formation and reconstitution of an enquiry committee, the report had not been submitted and documents were not provided. The petitioner relied on a handwritten entry in the committee's register but offered no documentary evidence that the required documents were withheld. The Court held that the petitioner failed to gather sufficient information and filed the petition prematurely without proper verification of facts. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition for being based on inadequate information. The decision underscores the need for petitioners to substantiate claims with concrete evidence before approaching the court.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate remedy when an administrative enquiry report is allegedly delayed?
- Does the petitioner have a sufficient basis to seek a writ of mandamus without documentary evidence?
Subjects
- writ of mandamus
- administrative enquiry
- health services
- delay
- petition dismissed
- evidence requirement
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:3626-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 755 OF 2026
Shrikant Rajkumar Wankhede
VERSUS
Commissioner Commissioner Of Health Services And Another
Mr. S. B. Parnere h/f Mr. V. P. Kadam, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. S. B. Narwade, AGP for respondent-State
CORAM : Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi &
Hiten S. Venegavkar, JJ.
DATE : 23rd January, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. Present petition has been filed for following relief :
B) By issuing writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or
direction, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the
respondent 2 to complete enquiry and submit the report to the
respondent no. 1 the within a stipulated period.
2. Heard Mr. Parnere, learned Advocate, holding for Mr. Kadam,
learned Advocate for petitioner.
3. Learned AGP waives notice for respondent No. 1. No
necessity to issue notice to respondent No. 2.
4. Learned Advocate for petitioner submits that State
Government of Maharashtra has issued government resolution and
942-WP-755-2026.odt 1 of 3
thereby proposed to open new clinics (primary health centers) for the
city area for providing better health facilities to the poor people residing
slum area. 90 clinics were proposed to be open in Jalgaon District as per
Government Resolution dated 11.07.2023. Petitioner filed application on
14.07.2025 before the respondents and requested to make enquiry in
respect of illegality and fraud going in the clinics run under the
nomenclature of “Hinduruday Balasaheb Thakre Apla Davakhana”.
Considering the seriousness in the allegations, enquiry committee was
situated which was then reconstituted. However, according to the
petitioner, till date report has not been submitted. Learned Advocate for
petitioner relies on the rojnama of the enquiry committee and the
remark was stating that Jherh f’kaih DPM ;kauh mijksDr uewn izek.ks dkxni=s fn-
12@10@2025 jksth i;Zar lknj dj.;kps ekU; dsys- ** According to the
petitioner, thereafter also the documents were not supplied and the
report has not been submitted.
5. Petitioner has not supported his statement by some
documentary evidence that Smt. Shimpi as aforesaid has not supplied
those documents till 12.10.2025. Learned Advocate for petitioner
submits that upon the oral instructions from the petitioner, it can be
incurred that report has not been submitted that means the documents
were not submitted and therefore, with limited prayer, the petitioner has
942-WP-755-2026.odt 2 of 3
come before this Court.
6. We are not in agreement with the said submissions.
Petitioner ought to have taken precaution and ought to have got
information as to whether there was tender of documents after
12.10.2025 or not. There ought not to have rush to file the present
petition which came to be filed on 02.11.2025. As the basic information
itself was not gathered and on the basis of inadequate information, the
petition has been filed deserves to be dismissed.
7. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed.
(Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.) (Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.)
B. S. Joshi
942-WP-755-2026.odt 3 of 3
Checking your session…