The Bombay High Court has issued notices to Maharashtra minister Pankaja Munde and several government officials on a petition challenging the legality of the Jalna District Planning Committee constituted by the state government. The court has sought responses from the authorities and will examine whether the committee’s composition complies with applicable legal provisions.
A division bench at the Aurangabad bench of the High Court, comprising Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Hiten Venegavkar, passed the order on March 4 while hearing a writ petition filed by local activist Bhausaheb Gore. Munde currently serves as the guardian minister of Jalna district.
In his petition, Gore has alleged that the District Planning Committee was formed in violation of the law. According to him, the allegedly improper constitution of the committee has led to the allocation of funds in a manner that is not being utilised for the intended purposes.
During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel informed the court that Gore had earlier been appointed as a special invitee member of the committee through a Government Resolution (GR) dated August 22, 2024. His tenure has since ended, and he is no longer associated with the committee.
The petitioner stated that he recently became aware that the constitution of the committee might not have been carried out in accordance with the law, which prompted him to approach the High Court through the present writ petition.
The bench noted that it had perused the Government Resolution dated August 22, 2024. However, at this preliminary stage, the court clarified that it would not comment on any actions or decisions already taken by the existing committee.
Instead, the court indicated that the proceedings would focus on examining whether the composition of the District Planning Committee complies with the relevant statutory provisions.
Apart from Munde, the High Court issued notices to the secretary of the state rural development department, the divisional commissioner, the district collector, and other concerned officials.
The respondents have been directed to file their replies by March 27 and furnish advance copies to the petitioner’s side.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on April 1.
