Shaikh Ansar Ahmad Md. Husain vs State of Maharashtra

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(SC) 592

L.NAGESWARA RAO, S.RAVINDRA BHAT
Shaikh Ansar Ahmad Md. Husain – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the parties : Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, AOR Mr. Anish R. Shah, Adv. Dr. R. R. Deshpande, AOR M/s. Dr. R.R. Deshpande And Associates, AOR Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv Mr.Sachin Patil, AOR Mr.Aaditya A. Pande, Adv. Mr.Geo Joseph, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Upadhyay, Adv Mrs. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, AOR Mr. Vyom Raghuvanshi, Adv Mr. Salik Shafique, Adv Ms. Purvat Wali., Adv Mr. Kazi Sangay Thupden, Adv Ms.Viddusshi Shandilya, Adv Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR Mr. Pai Amit, AOR Mr. Rahat Bansal, Adv. Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Komal Mundhra, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Rohit R. Saboo, Adv.

JUDGMENT :

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. Special leave granted in all the petitions. The appeals were heard with consent of counsel appearing for the parties to these proceedings.

2. The grievance of the appellants in these batch of appeals is with respect to a common judgment of the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court.¹ [dated 27.06.2019 in Criminal Public Interest Litigation No. 6/2018 with Public Interest Litigation No. 70/2014 and Criminal Application Nos. 2075, 2091 and 2107/2019]. In the criminal public interest litigation, the respondents (original writ petitioners, hereafter “PIL petitioners”) sought directions to the Union of India, the State of Maharashtra, the Maharashtra Housing and Urban Development Authority (MHADA) and state officials to initiate criminal proceedings against the responsible officers and office bearers of Municipal Council, Naldurg (hereafter “municipality”) and concerned contractors for misappropriation of government funds in implementation of the housing scheme in the municipality. Some appellants had filed criminal petitions, opposing the criminal proceedings, which were disposed of.

3. The PIL petitioners claimed to be social activists and former Coun

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(SC) 592

L.NAGESWARA RAO, S.RAVINDRA BHATShaikh Ansar Ahmad Md. Husain – AppellantVersusState of Maharashtra – Respondent

L.NAGESWARA RAO, S.RAVINDRA BHAT
Shaikh Ansar Ahmad Md. Husain – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent