LI Network
Published on: 30 July 2023 at 21:57 IST
The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court expressed its concerns over a petitioner who had filed multiple criminal proceedings against public officers and allowed them to remain pending for prolonged periods, likening it to a ‘sword of Damocles’.
The case, titled Sharad Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., brought attention to the petitioner, Sharad Kulkarni, who has filed seven proceedings against public officers since 2013 and allowed them to linger unresolved.
Justices Ravindra V Ghuge and YG Khobragade, the division bench, were skeptical about the petitioner’s intentions in filing these cases, particularly the petitions before the High Court.
As a pre-condition to hearing these pending cases, the Court directed Sharad Kulkarni to deposit ₹50,000 for each officer involved in each of the proceedings before the High Court.
Advocate Aniruddha Nimbalkar, representing Kulkarni, assured the Court that a total deposit of ₹7.5 lakh would be made within 60 days from July 21.
The Court clarified that the Public Interest Litigations (PILs) would only be heard if the deposit is made as required. Failure to comply with the deposit condition could result in the dismissal of the PILs, and costs might be imposed.
The division bench learned that Kulkarni had filed seven criminal cases against several officers from various departments. However, the Court observed that despite notice being issued to the respondent authorities, Kulkarni did not pursue the cases actively.
Some of these criminal cases have been pending for over 10 years, with one case awaiting resolution for nine years.
Among Kulkarni’s petitions was an allegation of ₹3 crore misappropriation, where he implicated nine officers and six contractors. He sought the registration of crimes against them under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, following a thorough inquiry.
The High Court, however, remained unconvinced about the genuineness of these petitions and thus imposed the pre-hearing deposit condition to ensure a serious commitment to the resolution of the pending cases.
The Court’s move is aimed at preventing the misuse of the legal system to keep cases unresolved indefinitely and to encourage genuine engagement with the judicial process.
