{"id":31441,"date":"2011-06-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-06-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandharinath-condbaji-sahare-vs-state-of-maharashtra-through-its-on-29-june-2011"},"modified":"2017-05-25T12:37:25","modified_gmt":"2017-05-25T07:07:25","slug":"pandharinath-condbaji-sahare-vs-state-of-maharashtra-through-its-on-29-june-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandharinath-condbaji-sahare-vs-state-of-maharashtra-through-its-on-29-june-2011","title":{"rendered":"Pandharinath Condbaji Sahare vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its on 29 June, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Pandharinath Condbaji Sahare vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its on 29 June, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: A. H. Joshi, U.V. Bakre<\/div>\n
              \n      Criminal WP\/230\/2003                                  1\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                             \n                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                                         NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                     \n                                CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION                NO. 230 OF 2003.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                    \n      PETITIONERS:                         1   Pandharinath Condbaji Sahare, Aged\n                                               about   58  years,  Occ:  Nil,  R\/o\n                                               Ramnagar Ward, Hinganghat, District\n                                               Wardha.\n                                           2   Lilabai   Pandharinath   Sahare,  Aged\n                                               about   52   years,   Occ:   Nil,  R\/o\n\n\n\n\n                                                   \n                                               Ramnagar Ward, Hinganghat, District\n                                               Wardha.\n                      ig                                   -VERSUS-\n                    \n      RESPONDENTS:                     1       State of Maharashtra Through its\n                                               Secretary,     Ministry of    Urban\n                                               Development Department, Mantralaya,\n                                               Mumbai - 400 032.\n                                       2       Municipal Council, Hinganghat through\n      \n\n                                               its Chief Officer, Hinganghat.\n                                       3       The President,            Municipal      Council,\n   \n\n\n\n                                               Hinganghat.\n                                       4       The   Chief          Engineer,   Water   Works\n                                               Department,            Municipal      Council,\n                                               Hinganghat.\n\n\n\n\n\n      Ms A. S. Athalye Advocate H\/F Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for\n      the petitioners.\n      Shri R. S. Nayak, APP for respondent no.1.\n      Shri Apurv De Advocate H\/F for Shri Anjan De Advocate for the\n      respondent nos.2 to 4.\n\n\n\n\n\n                              CORAM:   A. H. JOSHI AND U.V. BAKRE, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                              RESERVED ON :   14TH JUNE 2011.\n<\/p>\n
                              PRONOUNCED ON: 29th JUNE 2011.\n<\/p>\n
      ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per A. H. Joshi J)<\/p>\n
      1.                      Heard both sides.                 Perused the record.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:25:04 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
      Criminal WP\/230\/2003                                  2<\/span><\/p>\n
      2.                      By      the        present           petition,         reliefs         which     the<\/p>\n
      petitioners are seeking are quoted below:\n<\/p>\n
                 (
\n                 ” i)         direct the respondent Municipal Council to
\n                              initiate an enquiry for the reasons of leakage
\n                              of water due to which the citizens of Hinganghat
\n                              were affected, and;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 (ii) direct   the  Municipal   Council  to   initiate<\/p>\n
                      prosecution against the erring officers of
\n                      Municipal Council for their negligence\/failure
\n                      to supply pure drinking water to the citizens of
\n                      Hinganghat, and;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 (iii)direct the State as well as by Municipal
\n                      Council, Hinganghat and the erring officer of<\/p>\n
                      the   respondent   Municipal   Council  to  pay
\n                      appropriate   compensation   to   the  tune  of
\n                      Rs.10,00,000\/- to the petitioners for the loss<\/p>\n
                      of their son, and;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 (iv) direct the respondent State or the Municipal
\n                      Council to give employment to one of the son of<\/p>\n
                      the petitioners so as to save the family from
\n                      starving.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 [Quoted from pages no.18 & 19 of petition paper book]<\/p>\n
                                                          BACKGROUND<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      3.                      The     petitioners’              claim    is    based    on     the    following<\/p>\n
      pleadings :-\n<\/p>\n
              (a)             The petitioners are respectively father and mother of<\/p>\n
                              deceased         Sanjay           Pandharinath        Sahare.      Sanjay       fell<\/p>\n
                              sick on 15-2-2003. He was diagnosed to be suffering<\/p>\n
                              from Jaundice. He was initially treated in E.S.I.C.’s<\/p>\n
                              Hospital           at     Hinganghat            and    was      then     sent    to<\/p>\n
                              E.S.I.C.’s Hospital Nagpur, when the disease became<\/p>\n
                              uncontrollable.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:25:04 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
      Criminal WP\/230\/2003                                  3<\/span><\/p>\n
              (b)             There was           spread of Jaundice in 3 out of 63 Wards in<\/p>\n
                              Hinganghat           Municipal           Area    in    2003.    The    Municipal<\/p>\n
                              Council took a drive of prevention and control of<\/p>\n
                              Jaundice in February 2003. The Municipal Council and<\/p>\n
                              the Government had declared the Cottage Hospital at<\/p>\n
                              Hinganghat           to     be     24     hours       treatment      Center    for<\/p>\n
                              Jaundice.              Private           doctors         and         laboratories<\/p>\n
                              participated in fighting with epidemic.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (c)
\n                      ig      The petitioner’s son Sanjay was serving in Industry<\/p>\n
                              namely Vaibhav Textile Mills. He was 38 years of age.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                              He was getting wages of Rs.90 per day and was earning<\/p>\n
                              Rs.2700\/- per month.                 He used to maintain his parents<\/p>\n
                              and had commitment to family. The petitioners are<\/p>\n
                              entitled for compensation of Rs. 10 lacs.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      4.                      The petitioners have placed on record case papers of<\/p>\n
      the medical treatment received by the petitioners and the medical<\/p>\n
      papers        pertaining              to    the     Laboratory          analysis       of    contaminated<\/p>\n
      water.\n<\/p>\n
      5.                      The      petitioners              have    also    placed        on    record    as<\/p>\n
      ANNEXURE NO.VIII, the letter written by the Civil Surgeon, Wardha<\/p>\n
      to the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Hinganghat and other<\/p>\n
      authorities for insisting upon them to take action for fighting<\/p>\n
                                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:25:04 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
      Criminal WP\/230\/2003                                  4<\/span><\/p>\n
      with epidemic of jaundice.\n<\/p>\n
      6.                      During pendency of the petition, the petitioner has<\/p>\n
      filed affidavit of one Dr. Mohata a private Medical Practitioner,<\/p>\n
      to substantiate the petitioner’s plea that the Municipal Council<\/p>\n
      had failed and had neglected in supplying potable water, and to<\/p>\n
      plead       that         the      Council        was      supplying     unhygienic     and    disease<\/p>\n
      infested water.\n<\/p>\n
                              This affidavit of Dr. Mohota along with annexures is<\/p>\n
      on record at page 57 to 85 apart from annexures thereto.\n<\/p>\n
      7.                      By      amending          the      petition,      the    petitioner         has<\/p>\n
      incorporated                 averment         relating        to   statutory     duties       of    the<\/p>\n
      Municipal Council and its Officers to substantiate its plea for<\/p>\n
      investigation and registration of crime etc.<\/p>\n
      8.                      The respondent no.2 – Municipal Council has filed two<\/p>\n
      affidavits opposing the petition.                             First affidavit is filed on or<\/p>\n
      about       11-08-2003.               Second       affidavit       is   filed   on    25-4-2006     to<\/p>\n
      counter the allegation contained in the affidavit of Dr. Mohata.\n<\/p>\n
      These affidavits of the Municipal Council are on record at pages<\/p>\n
      no. 14 to 51 and 86 to 111 respectively.\n<\/p>\n
      9.                      The     Municipal           Council    –   respondent     no.2       has   not<\/p>\n
      replied        the contents                 of the        petition answering         each averment<\/p>\n
      and\/or        each           paragraph.          The      affidavit-in-reply         filed    by    the<\/p>\n
                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:25:04 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
      Criminal WP\/230\/2003                                  5<\/span><\/p>\n
      Council          is       drafted        in     an    un-ruly      manner      has      caused    immense<\/p>\n
      inconvenience to the Court in the process of tracing denial,<\/p>\n
      admissions              and      special        pleadings         if    any.       This       Court   has,<\/p>\n
      therefore,               undertaken            threadbare         scrutiny         of    averments     of<\/p>\n
      respective pleadings to find out the facts which are admitted<\/p>\n
      and\/or denied, and as to specific pleadings if any.\n<\/p>\n
      10.                     From scrutiny of papers, what is either specifically<\/p>\n
      pleaded or has been admitted by the respondent no.2 is summarized<\/p>\n
      as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                 (1)          Over the years in the past, the Municipal Council has<\/p>\n
                              been exerting to prevent jaundice.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 (2)          In the year 2003, there was outbreak of jaundice.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 (3)          It was noticed that there were leakages in main water<\/p>\n
                              supply         pipeline           as     well    as     subsidiary        supply<\/p>\n
                              pipelines, at many places.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 (4)          Efforts were being made to control the leakage.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 (5)          Proper        propaganda           was    being        made     for    promoting<\/p>\n
                              hygiene and health habits.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 (6)          Letter was written by the Civil Surgeon to the Chief<\/p>\n
                              Officer bringing to his notice various deficiencies.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 (7)          The Chief Officer, Municipal Council had taken steps<\/p>\n
                              to     invite       various        persons      for    a   meeting       deciding<\/p>\n
                                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:25:04 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
      Criminal WP\/230\/2003                                  6<\/span><\/p>\n
                              modalities for controlling the spread of jaundice.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      11.                     What is denied is summarized as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                 (a)         That outbreak of                   hepatitis was due to any failure on<\/p>\n
                             the part of Municipal Council;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 (b)         That contaminated water was supplied;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 (c)         That       there       was         any    dereliction     of    duty    by     the<\/p>\n
                             Officers of the Municipal Council;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 (d)         That there is any liability to pay compensation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      12.
\n                      ig      The facts which are not denied, have to be divided<\/p>\n
      into two parts A and B under different heads and those are as<\/p>\n
      follows:\n<\/p>\n
                                                                 [A]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                 (i)          Sanjay died due to                  hepatitis.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 (ii)         Sanjay         was       treated         in    E.S.I.C.’s        Hospital      at<\/p>\n
                              Hinganghat as well as in E.S.C.I.C.’s Hospital at<\/p>\n
                              Nagpur.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 (iii) There are no patients of hepatitis in the Ward from<\/p>\n
                              which Sanjay hails.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 (iv)         Sanjay was earning Rs.90\/- per day and his age was 32<\/p>\n
                              years,        and     that        the    petitioners      have    lost      their<\/p>\n
                              support for life.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:25:04 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
      Criminal WP\/230\/2003                                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                                [B]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                 (i)          That the Civil Surgeon & other officers of Government<\/p>\n
                              had noticed the defects in the water supply.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 (ii) That the defects existed in the drinking water supply<\/p>\n
                              lines        and       suction          of    contaminated      water,     the<\/p>\n
                              contaminated water entered in pipelines.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      13.                     Apart from that the petitioner has relied upon the<\/p>\n
      Civil Surgeon’s letter Annexure-VIII, which is at page 52 in the<\/p>\n
      affidavit filed by the District Health Officer Mr. R. R. Rathod<\/p>\n
      he has confirmed that the defects were found in the pipeline,<\/p>\n
      those were brought to the notice of the Municipal Council lateron<\/p>\n
      and corrective measures were taken by the Municipal authorities.\n<\/p>\n
                              He has also given entire statistics of the patients<\/p>\n
      suffering from jaundice, stating that as much as 738 suspected<\/p>\n
      jaundice         patients             inclusive           of   15    pregnant   women    were    found<\/p>\n
      during survey in the population of Hinganghat town which was<\/p>\n
      95,047 which is more than 0.73%.\n<\/p>\n
      14.                     Learned Advocate for the petitioners has placed on<\/p>\n
      record certain literature relating to                                   reasons of outbreak of<\/p>\n
      jaundice in generality as well as in specific to the outbreak at<\/p>\n
      Hinganghat.\n<\/p>\n
      15.                     The respondent no.2 has also placed on record certain<\/p>\n
                                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:25:04 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
      Criminal WP\/230\/2003                                  8<\/span><\/p>\n
      literature to urge that the bacteria named ‘E Coli’ which was<\/p>\n
      found in the drinking water samples does not cause jaundice.\n<\/p>\n
      16.                     The     petitioner           has    relied       upon    certain      citations<\/p>\n
      relating to maintainability of petition, when the involvement of<\/p>\n
      disputed questions of fact is posed as a shield for opposing the<\/p>\n
      petition         and         when      compensation          can    be   awarded       etc.         These<\/p>\n
      Judgments are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
            (1)              (1998) 3 SCC 67 P. A. Narayanan Vs. Union of India
\n                        ig   and others.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (2)              (2000)3           SCC       754,      Parvatidevi         and      others       V.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                             Commissioner of Police, Delhi and others.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (3)              (2000)4           Supreme          Court     Cases       543,     Tamil      Nadu
\n                             Electricity Board Vs. Sumathi and others.
\n            (4)              (2002)2         SCC     162,       M.P.    Electricity     Board       Vs.   Shail
\n                             Kumari and others.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (5)              (2004) 3 SCC 553 ABL International Ltd. & another V.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                             Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd and<\/p>\n
                             others.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (6)              AIR 2002 SC 1598 Director of Settlements, A. P. &
\n                             others Vs. M. R. Apparao and another.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      17.                     Learned Advocate Mr. De for the respondent no.2 has<\/p>\n
      for opposing the petition, relied upon following judgment.\n<\/p>\n
                               AIR       1965        Supreme       Court       1616,     Kurban       Hussein
\n                               Mohamedalli Bangawalla Vs. State of Maharashtra.\n<\/p>\n
      18.                     Considering the rival contentions, this Court has to<\/p>\n
      rule on the following points:\n<\/p>\n
                 [1]          Is the petition liable to be dismissed as it involves<\/p>\n
                              disputed questions of fact?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:25:04 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
      Criminal WP\/230\/2003                                  9<\/span><\/p>\n
                 [2]          Has the petitioner proved and made out a case that<\/p>\n
                              there       was      spread       of   Jaundice      in     Hinganghat        Town<\/p>\n
                              collateral           to     the     period    of     sickness       of    Sanjay<\/p>\n
                              Sahare?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 [3]          Has      the      Municipal         Council        failed    in     performing<\/p>\n
                              constitutional              obligation       and    duties     of    providing<\/p>\n
                              potable water to the citizens?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 [4]          Did Sanjay Sahare died due to                      hepatitis?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 [5]
\n                        ig    In the event answer to point nos. 2 and                             3 favours<\/p>\n
                              the petitioners, is Municipal Council – respondent<\/p>\n
                              no.2       liable         for     payment    of     compensation         to   the<\/p>\n
                              petitioners?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 [6]          If the petitioners are entitled to the compensation,<\/p>\n
                              to what extent?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      19.                     Now we would discuss the points framed by us above<\/p>\n
      for consideration herein after.\n<\/p>\n
                              As to Point No.1:\n<\/p>\n
                              Is the petition liable to be dismissed as it involves
\n                              disputed questions of fact?\n<\/p>\n
      20.                     We deem it appropriate to record at the outset that<\/p>\n
      we are fully alive and conscious of the position that we are<\/p>\n
      exercising the writ jurisdiction and do it in a summary procedure<\/p>\n
                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:25:04 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
      Criminal WP\/230\/2003                                  10<\/span><\/p>\n
      and do the fact finding whenever the fact finding does not call<\/p>\n
      for an enquiry involving full fledged and formal trial. We are<\/p>\n
      also conscious of legal position that when facts and justice<\/p>\n
      demands,         and        where         the    fact      finding      in   summary       procedure     is<\/p>\n
      possible,          we         do     not    shirk       the      responsibility       in    doing      said<\/p>\n
      exercise.\n<\/p>\n
      21.                     Now     on    the       facts      of    present     case,    if    we   find it<\/p>\n
      possible to adjudicate the issues in a summary procedure, we<\/p>\n
      shall do it.\n<\/p>\n
                              Whether we can do this exercise shall emerge after we<\/p>\n
      discuss remaining points, as hereinafter.\n<\/p>\n
                              We shall therefore answer point No.1 at the end.\n<\/p>\n
                              As to Point No.2 :\n<\/p>\n
                              Has the petitioner proved and made out a case that
\n                              there was spread of Jaundice in Hinganghat Town
\n                              collateral to the period of sickness of Sanjay<\/p>\n
                              Sahare?\n<\/p>\n
      22.                     The        petition       contains         detailed      narration        as     to<\/p>\n
      outbreak and spread of Jaundice in Municipal Town of Hinganghat.\n<\/p>\n
      23.                     The letter written by the Civil Surgeon which is at<\/p>\n
      Annexure-VIII makes certain things clear beyond doubt.                                                These<\/p>\n
      things are :-\n<\/p>\n
           (a)                There        is     leakage         in    the    vault       chamber     of     the<\/p>\n
                                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:25:04 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
      Criminal WP\/230\/2003                                  11<\/span><\/p>\n
                              filtration            Center             and     contaminated        water      had<\/p>\n
                              accumulated in it.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (b)                In the water filtration premises, the main pipeline<\/p>\n
                              had heavy leakages and surroundings were filled with<\/p>\n
                              mud around the leakages.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (c)                The      main      location          of        eruption       of   Jaundice     was<\/p>\n
                              Yeshwant        Nagar,        Hinganghat          and   though      chlorination<\/p>\n
                              was found in the water, the vault chamber was filled
\n                      ig      with dirty water and the contaminated water must have<\/p>\n
                              entered        into      pipeline          due    to    its    suction     in   the<\/p>\n
                              leaking pipeline.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                              Apart from this letter, the District Health Officer<\/p>\n
      has filed an affidavit in which the outbreak of jaundice in<\/p>\n
      February 2003 in Hinganghat town is admitted in clear terms.\n<\/p>\n
      738 suspected jaundice patients comprising of 15 pregnant women<\/p>\n
      in the population of 95047 were found during door to door survey<\/p>\n
      and        there       were      leakages        in        the    pipeline      which      the   Municipal<\/p>\n
      Council have reported to have corrected.\n<\/p>\n
      24.                     The respondent no.2 has not explained or denied the<\/p>\n
      contents of the affidavit of the District Health Officer Mr.<\/p>\n
      Rathod by filing a rejoinder or otherwise.\n<\/p>\n
      25.                     These averments are admitted by the respondent no.2,<\/p>\n
                                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:25:04 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
      Criminal WP\/230\/2003                                  12<\/span><\/p>\n
      though         by        incorporating             the      additional        paragraphs        in    the<\/p>\n
      affidavit-in-reply, the respondent no.2 has in an evasive manner<\/p>\n
      and        argumentatively               denied       that     it     is    responsible     for       said<\/p>\n
      outbreak. This type of evasive denial amounts to admission.\n<\/p>\n
      26.                     In the aforesaid background as to record, we hold<\/p>\n
      that there was outbreak                        of epidemic of jaundice in February 2003<\/p>\n
      in         Hinganghat             Municipal           area.      Point        No.2     is   answered<\/p>\n
      affirmatively and in favour of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
                              As to Point No.3:\n<\/p>\n
                              Has the Municipal Council failed from performing
\n                              constitutional obligation and duties of providing
\n                              potable water to the citizens?\n<\/p>\n
      27.                     As it is seen from the pleadings of the respondent<\/p>\n
      no.2 that it has denied that it has failed in performance of duty<\/p>\n
      whatsoever.               Yet the respondent no.2 has not denied rather it was<\/p>\n
      unable to deny the deficiencies pointed out by the authorities<\/p>\n
      i.e.        the          District          Health          Officer,        Civil     Surgeon,        Chief<\/p>\n
      Microbiologist of the District Health Laboratories.\n<\/p>\n
                              On the other hand, the Municipal Council has declared<\/p>\n
      its resolve to carry out the compliance of corrective measures as<\/p>\n
      dictated by the authorities.\n<\/p>\n
      28.                     In order to demonstrate that the Municipal Council<\/p>\n
                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:25:04 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
      Criminal WP\/230\/2003                                  13<\/span><\/p>\n
      was vigilant and careful in the past, it has placed on record<\/p>\n
      documents to show the steps taken by it from 1997-2000. However,<\/p>\n
      the steps taken by it immediately prior to outbreak of jaundice<\/p>\n
      in    2003       are         not    placed       on    record       except    one    contemporaneous<\/p>\n
      public notification, copy whereof is at Annexure-VI, page 51.\n<\/p>\n
      29.                     It    is     evident        that      the     Municipal      Council    became<\/p>\n
      alert only after the news items had flashed in which it was<\/p>\n
      reported         that         a    Legislative             Assembly       Question   was   asked    and<\/p>\n
      incident<\/p>\n
                       of death             which had            occurred received         publicity. The<\/p>\n
      meeting relied upon by the respondent no.2 was called by letter<\/p>\n
      dated 26-2-2003 in response to the said news flashed in the<\/p>\n
      newspaper on 25-2-2003. All these acts have commenced only after<\/p>\n
      the alarm was caused.\n<\/p>\n
      30.                     It    is     thus,      seen       that     the    Municipal     Council    was<\/p>\n
      spending on purification and sterilization of water, however it<\/p>\n
      has utterly failed to take care and abide by the duty of ensuring<\/p>\n
      uncontaminated and potable water to the residents of Hinganghat<\/p>\n
      Town by failing in being vigilant in maintenance of main as well<\/p>\n
      as subsidiary drinking water supply pipelines, in order to avoid<\/p>\n
      access of filthy and virus infested water therein.\n<\/p>\n
      31.                     On the other hand, it is duly proved by the entire<\/p>\n
      undisputed and indisputable evidence in the form of communication<\/p>\n
                                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:25:04 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
      Criminal WP\/230\/2003                                  14<\/span><\/p>\n
      of Civil Surgeon and affidavit of the District Health Officer<\/p>\n
      that the Municipal Council has not only failed, but has utterly<\/p>\n
      failed in discharge of duties of supplying uncontaminated and<\/p>\n
      potable water to its citizens.\n<\/p>\n
      32.                     The proved case of supply of contaminated water to<\/p>\n
      three Wards has to be looked into as a tip of iceberg. There are<\/p>\n
      no water tight compartments between different pipelines in the<\/p>\n
      Municipal          area         and,       therefore,        it    would       be   gravely   risky    to<\/p>\n
      believe that the contaminated water was supplied only in three<\/p>\n
      wards and in the rest of the areas, ‘all was well’.                                           Moreover,<\/p>\n
      the statistic is not brought forward by the Municipal Council to<\/p>\n
      suggest and\/or prove that in the areas other than three Wards<\/p>\n
      where there was outbreak of jaundice, no patient of jaundice was<\/p>\n
      found.\n<\/p>\n
      33.                     It    is    also      proved        that    the    Municipal     Council      has<\/p>\n
      utterly         failed           to      adhere      to     the     responsibilities          which    is<\/p>\n
      bestowed          upon         it     by    the     statute        and    by    conferring     upon    it<\/p>\n
      constitutional                 anatomy and           power by         virtue of       the provisions<\/p>\n
      contained in Chapter IX A of Constitution of India. In failing to<\/p>\n
      notice the patent leakages and access by suction of contaminated<\/p>\n
      water in the drinking water pipelines, the Municipal Council –\n<\/p>\n
      respondent              no.2       has     failed      in    discharge         of   duties    with    due<\/p>\n
                                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:25:04 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
      Criminal WP\/230\/2003                                  15<\/span><\/p>\n
      diligence and due duty of cate.\n<\/p>\n
      34                      Breakage and Leakages are known incidences, however,<\/p>\n
      the failure to notice and repair is an utter failure in duty.\n<\/p>\n
      The leakages cannot be in any manner be regarded as matters<\/p>\n
      beyond cognizance by prudent human abilities. Thus leakages are<\/p>\n
      not accountable to act beyond human control or                               due to vismajore.\n<\/p>\n
      35.                     The      discussion            herein    before      thus     propels      a<\/p>\n
      conclusion that the Municipal Council had failed in performance<\/p>\n
      of its duty of providing uncontaminated and potable water to the<\/p>\n
      citizen in the Hinganghat town.\n<\/p>\n
      36.                     This Court, therefore, arrived at a conclusion that<\/p>\n
      the Municipal Council has failed in performance of its statutory<\/p>\n
      and     constitutional obligation                          to supply   potable water        to its<\/p>\n
      subjects.\n<\/p>\n
      37.                     We consider that it would be unnecessary to exert any<\/p>\n
      further on the point as to whether supplying potable water being<\/p>\n
      the duty of the Local Self Government – the Municipal Council by<\/p>\n
      deduction.\n<\/p>\n
                              As to Point No.4 and As to Point No.5:\n<\/p>\n
                              Did Sanjay Sahare died due to hepatitis?\n<\/p>\n
                                                    &
\n                              In the event answer to point nos. 2 and   3 favours
\n                              the petitioners, is Municipal Council – respondent
\n                              no.2 liable for payment of compensation to the<\/p>\n
                                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:25:04 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
      Criminal WP\/230\/2003                                  16<\/span><\/p>\n
                              petitioners?\n<\/p>\n
      38.                     The fact of death of Sanjay Sahare is not disputed by<\/p>\n
      the        respondent            No.2.        The       medical     treatment       papers      of     the<\/p>\n
      petitioner which are at Annexure No.1 which consists of record of<\/p>\n
      observations and treatment report relating to pathology, letter<\/p>\n
      of reference to higher Center and cause of death which are on<\/p>\n
      record        at        page     20     to    27    have      not   been      denied,    disputed       or<\/p>\n
      commented.\n<\/p>\n
                      ig      Thus, the fact that the petitioner’s son Sanjay died<\/p>\n
      due to        hepatitis ie. Jaundice is proved.\n<\/p>\n
      39.                     We deem it ourselves to be bound by basic doctrine of<\/p>\n
      law of torts Ubi jus ibi remedium as strengthened and fortified<\/p>\n
      further         by       the     doctrine          of      constitutional      justice        where    the<\/p>\n
      constitutional                 and     statutory           rights   would     not   be   a     piece    of<\/p>\n
      decoration. Such constitutional obligation has to be capable of<\/p>\n
      enforcement               and     has      to    fructify         into   an    order     of    due     and<\/p>\n
      restitutive justice. In the result, the local self Government,<\/p>\n
      now with Constitutional                         seal, which fails in performance of its<\/p>\n
      obligation as to duty and discharge of duty of care, would be<\/p>\n
      liable for damages.\n<\/p>\n
                              In the era of welfare state, a public authority and<\/p>\n
      local self Government would not be absolved from being liable to<\/p>\n
                                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:25:04 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
      Criminal WP\/230\/2003                                  17<\/span><\/p>\n
      pay compensation.\n<\/p>\n
      40.                     The learned Advocate for the respondent no.2 was not<\/p>\n
      in a position to shield the liability of the respondent no.2 to<\/p>\n
      pay the compensation by claiming immunity                                       and exemption. Any<\/p>\n
      such        immunity          may     be     an    implied         a   fall   out    of    any    natural<\/p>\n
      phenomena such as act of nature, act of God and emergency beyond<\/p>\n
      human abilities, all distinguishable from act of negligence. No<\/p>\n
      such       immunity           based      on     facts       or    in   law    is    made    out    by   the<\/p>\n
      Respondent No.2<\/p>\n
      41.                     Consequently, we hold that the Municipal Council is<\/p>\n
      liable,         on        account         of      its      failure,     in     performance        of    its<\/p>\n
      functions, duties and responsibilities,                                    to pay compensation to<\/p>\n
      the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
      42.                     The petitioners have claimed that the deceased Sanjay<\/p>\n
      was        in   a      private        industry          and   earning        Rs.90\/-      per    day.   The<\/p>\n
      details of his qualification, earning etc. have not been given by<\/p>\n
      the        petitioners.            He     was     living         jointly     with   his    parents      and<\/p>\n
      maintaining himself and his parents. By applying yardsticks as<\/p>\n
      applied in the fatal accidents and or compensation relating to<\/p>\n
      other cases, the extent of compensation to the petitioners can be<\/p>\n
      considered.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:25:04 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
      Criminal WP\/230\/2003                                  18<\/span><\/p>\n
                              As to Point No.6 :-\n<\/p>\n
                              If the petitioners entitled to the compensation, to
\n                              what extent?\n<\/p>\n
      43.                     The     loss      suffered         by   the    parents     would,      in    the<\/p>\n
      result, emerge in the following shape:-\n<\/p>\n
             (a)              Rs.90\/-        per day – wage           excluding     weekly     off        and<\/p>\n
                              public holidays.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (b)               He could be expected to get moderate rise in the<\/p>\n
                      ig      wages         due     to    increase      in   dearness     allowance        and<\/p>\n
                              other benefits.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (c)               In the result, his wage could be considered to be<\/p>\n
                              safely to be Rs.100\/- per day as an aggregate without<\/p>\n
                              any increase whatsoever, for years to come.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (d)               His maintenance expenses, considering he being joint<\/p>\n
                              with his parents, would be Rs.30\/ per day.                        Therefore<\/p>\n
                              dependance of petitioners together would be RS.70\/-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                              per day.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (e)              He would be working for 25 days in a month.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (f)               His age was 32 years.\n\n\n            (g)               By applying normal expectancy, health security etc.,\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
                              he could be hoped to have lived somewhere between 15<\/p>\n
                              to 20 years. The expectancy of life of petitioners<\/p>\n
                                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:25:04 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
      Criminal WP\/230\/2003                                  19<\/span><\/p>\n
                              also be around same spell.                         Therefore, the multiplier<\/p>\n
                              be considered to be 18 years.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      44.                     The     compensation               which        the     petitioners             would    be<\/p>\n
      entitled to will be as follows:\n<\/p>\n
           (1)                Rs.70      per     day     x    25       days     x    12     months       x    18    years<\/p>\n
                              = 3,78,000 (Rupees Three Lakhs Seventy Eight Thousand<\/p>\n
                              Only).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (2)                The      petitioners               would         be     entitled           to     further
\n                        ig    compensation           towards           loss     of    amenity       and       love    and<\/p>\n
                              affection which can be quantified to Rs.1,00,000\/-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                              total       amount       would           be     Rs.3,78,000           +    1,00,000        =<\/p>\n
                              Rs.4,78,000\/-.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (3)                In     view that compensation is                             being        paid in lump<\/p>\n
                              sum,      it       could            be    reduced           by   Rs.50,000\/-            i.e.<\/p>\n
                              Rs.4,78,000 – 50,000 = 4,28,000\/-.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      45.        (a)          The        compensation             would             thus       be       Rs.4,28,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
                              with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of death.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 (b)          The         petitioners                  would         be        entitled            to the<\/p>\n
                              consequential            costs of Rs.12,000\/-.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      46.                     We, therefore, hold that the petitioners are entitled<\/p>\n
      to     receive               compensation          of       Rs.4,28,000              +   12,000         costs     =<\/p>\n
      4,40,000\/-.               Out of the amount of compensation including accruing<\/p>\n
                                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:25:04 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
      Criminal WP\/230\/2003                                  20<\/span><\/p>\n
      interest, a sum of Rs.4,00,000\/- be kept in fixed deposit in a<\/p>\n
      nationalize bank at Hinganghat. Remaining amount i.e. Rs.40,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
      and interest accrued be paid to the petitioners equally.\n<\/p>\n
      47.                     In the initial part of the judgment, while dealing<\/p>\n
      with the point No.1, we have noted that we shall deal with those<\/p>\n
      aspects at latter stage.\n<\/p>\n
      48.                     As has been noticed by us and we have discussed in<\/p>\n
      foregoing          paras,          the     questions         involved     in   point    nos.2   to   6<\/p>\n
      involved certain facts which were disputed by the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
      These disputed facts, however, were of such nature that most of<\/p>\n
      the averments described in those facts have been admitted by the<\/p>\n
      respondent no.2 or denied evasively which amounts to admission,<\/p>\n
      and rest are indisputable being opposed barely by arguments.\n<\/p>\n
      49.                     In so far as the aspect that the petition is liable<\/p>\n
      to be dismissed as it involves disputed question of fact is<\/p>\n
      concerned, it is pertinent to note that the objection that the<\/p>\n
      petition involved disputed questions of fact is an objection to<\/p>\n
      exercise           the         jurisdiction            and    not    to    the     existence       and<\/p>\n
      availability of the jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
      50.                     On facts, the aspects outbreak and spread of jaundice<\/p>\n
      is     proved.            On    facts       that      there    existed     major       loopholes     in<\/p>\n
      maintenance of pipeline is also an admitted fact.                                   The aspect of<\/p>\n
                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:25:04 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
      Criminal WP\/230\/2003                                  21<\/span><\/p>\n
      failure of the Municipal Council to perform its duty was thus<\/p>\n
      tacitly admitted.\n<\/p>\n
      51.                     The aspects of earning capacity of the deceased and<\/p>\n
      dependents are the matter of bare reckoning and do not call for<\/p>\n
      any adjudication and fact finding.                               Moreover, the daily income of<\/p>\n
      the        deceased           pleaded        by      the     petitioners       matches       with       bare<\/p>\n
      ‘minimum         wage’,           and     is    a    most       realistic     claim     which         can   be<\/p>\n
      regarded as proved.\n<\/p>\n
      52.
\n                      ig      In the circumstances, we hold that the facts which<\/p>\n
      are        disputed            are      of      such       nature      that     those       are       either<\/p>\n
      indisputable or are proved on admissions of the respondent or<\/p>\n
      failure to deny.\n<\/p>\n
      53.                     The      question            as    to     objection      to     exercise            of<\/p>\n
      jurisdiction on account of the disputed questions of fact was<\/p>\n
      liable to be raised as a preliminary objection. It ought to have<\/p>\n
      been       persuaded            before         the    rule      was   issued.      It       is    a     grave<\/p>\n
      departure              from      propriety           to    raise      this    objection          when       the<\/p>\n
      petition          has         reached        the      final      hearing      after     9    years.          We<\/p>\n
      sincerely believe that if the facts are incapable of adjudication<\/p>\n
      in summary jurisdiction, this objection still remains available.\n<\/p>\n
      54.                     On facts, we hold that the facts are of such nature<\/p>\n
      that       the     decision            thereon        in     summary    procedure       is       not    only<\/p>\n
                                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:25:04 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
      Criminal WP\/230\/2003                                  22<\/span><\/p>\n
      possible, but is convenient and capable of being done without<\/p>\n
      obstacles whatsoever.\n<\/p>\n
                              We therefore, overrule the objection as to alternate<\/p>\n
      remedy and the ground that the petition involves questions of<\/p>\n
      fact which are disputed by the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
      55.                     In so far as the aspect of direction to initiate<\/p>\n
      prosecution               is      concerned,          while       the     Municipal    Council     has<\/p>\n
      statutory and constitutional duty to carry out the maintenance of<\/p>\n
      water supply pipelines, by this date, the issue has become 7 to 8<\/p>\n
      years       old.            The     petitioners            and    their    Advocates    should    have<\/p>\n
      prayed        for interim               directions from             the Court       for preliminary<\/p>\n
      enquiry is to offence, if any, which could have ultimately led to<\/p>\n
      conclusion as to whether registration of offence needs to be<\/p>\n
      done.        We see no impediment in propriety of praying for such a<\/p>\n
      direction.\n<\/p>\n
      56.                     We often see that the petitions, in which the prayers<\/p>\n
      for        registration             of     crime       are       made,    are     remaining   pending<\/p>\n
      primarily firstly due to the large filing and secondly due to<\/p>\n
      reasons best known to the Lawyers namely they do not press for<\/p>\n
      the     matters of               preliminary enquiries                   by way    of interlocutory<\/p>\n
      orders,        as in           present case.               Now after       8 years,    a prayer of<\/p>\n
      registration               of offence           is to        be considered.         Considering the<\/p>\n
                                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:25:04 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
      Criminal WP\/230\/2003                                  23<\/span><\/p>\n
      intricacy due to involvement of large number of staff members and<\/p>\n
      the fact that the senior Officers such as Chief Officers keep on<\/p>\n
      changing          and         the     elected         representatives    are    always    ‘guest<\/p>\n
      actors’, the delay and further enquiry would result in making<\/p>\n
      some subordinate staff a scapegoat. Due to the delayed enquiry,<\/p>\n
      eventually, the criminal liability may not be fixed, rather such<\/p>\n
      orders would tax the system and may ultimately turn out to be a<\/p>\n
      futile exercise.\n<\/p>\n
      57.
\n                      ig      We are, therefore, of the view that any order as to<\/p>\n
      taking        action           towards         the     criminal   liability     would    not    be<\/p>\n
      justified in the facts and circumstances of the case, we order<\/p>\n
      accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
      58.                     We make Rule absolute in terms of paragraphs 44 to<\/p>\n
      46, 54 and 57.                 The order for payment of compensation be complied<\/p>\n
      by deposit of amount in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior<\/p>\n
      Division, at Hinganghat within 90 days from today.\n<\/p>\n
      59.                     Other reliefs, not granted are declined.\n<\/p>\n
                              Issue of certified copy is expedited.\n<\/p>\n
                                   JUDGE                                        JUDGE\n\n\n\n      \/\/MULEY\/\/\n\n\n\n\n                                                                  ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:25:04 :::<\/span>\n               \n      Criminal WP\/230\/2003                                  24<\/span>\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                         \n                                                                 \n                                                                \n                                                  \n                     \n                    \n      \n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                                 ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:25:04 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Pandharinath Condbaji Sahare vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its on 29 June, 2011 Bench: A. H. Joshi, U.V. Bakre Criminal WP\/230\/2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 230 OF 2003. PETITIONERS: 1 Pandharinath Condbaji Sahare, Aged about 58 years, Occ: Nil, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-31441","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPandharinath Condbaji Sahare vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its on 29 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandharinath-condbaji-sahare-vs-state-of-maharashtra-through-its-on-29-june-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pandharinath Condbaji Sahare vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its on 29 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandharinath-condbaji-sahare-vs-state-of-maharashtra-through-its-on-29-june-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-06-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-25T07:07:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandharinath-condbaji-sahare-vs-state-of-maharashtra-through-its-on-29-june-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandharinath-condbaji-sahare-vs-state-of-maharashtra-through-its-on-29-june-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pandharinath Condbaji Sahare vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its on 29 June, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-06-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-25T07:07:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandharinath-condbaji-sahare-vs-state-of-maharashtra-through-its-on-29-june-2011\"},\"wordCount\":4197,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandharinath-condbaji-sahare-vs-state-of-maharashtra-through-its-on-29-june-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandharinath-condbaji-sahare-vs-state-of-maharashtra-through-its-on-29-june-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandharinath-condbaji-sahare-vs-state-of-maharashtra-through-its-on-29-june-2011\",\"name\":\"Pandharinath Condbaji Sahare vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its on 29 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-06-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-25T07:07:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandharinath-condbaji-sahare-vs-state-of-maharashtra-through-its-on-29-june-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandharinath-condbaji-sahare-vs-state-of-maharashtra-through-its-on-29-june-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandharinath-condbaji-sahare-vs-state-of-maharashtra-through-its-on-29-june-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pandharinath Condbaji Sahare vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its on 29 June, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Pandharinath Condbaji Sahare vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its on 29 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandharinath-condbaji-sahare-vs-state-of-maharashtra-through-its-on-29-june-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pandharinath Condbaji Sahare vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its on 29 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandharinath-condbaji-sahare-vs-state-of-maharashtra-through-its-on-29-june-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-06-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-25T07:07:25+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandharinath-condbaji-sahare-vs-state-of-maharashtra-through-its-on-29-june-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandharinath-condbaji-sahare-vs-state-of-maharashtra-through-its-on-29-june-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pandharinath Condbaji Sahare vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its on 29 June, 2011","datePublished":"2011-06-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-25T07:07:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandharinath-condbaji-sahare-vs-state-of-maharashtra-through-its-on-29-june-2011"},"wordCount":4197,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandharinath-condbaji-sahare-vs-state-of-maharashtra-through-its-on-29-june-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandharinath-condbaji-sahare-vs-state-of-maharashtra-through-its-on-29-june-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandharinath-condbaji-sahare-vs-state-of-maharashtra-through-its-on-29-june-2011","name":"Pandharinath Condbaji Sahare vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its on 29 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-06-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-25T07:07:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandharinath-condbaji-sahare-vs-state-of-maharashtra-through-its-on-29-june-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandharinath-condbaji-sahare-vs-state-of-maharashtra-through-its-on-29-june-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandharinath-condbaji-sahare-vs-state-of-maharashtra-through-its-on-29-june-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pandharinath Condbaji Sahare vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its on 29 June, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31441","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=31441"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31441\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=31441"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=31441"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=31441"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}