CRI. WP 1920-19 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1920 OF 2019 Godhaji s/o Babusing Chavhan, Age : 57 years, Occu.: Service, R/o.: Islapur, Tq. Kinwat, District : Nanded …. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through : its Principal Secretary, Forest Department, Mantralay, Mumbai – 400032 2. The Principal Chief Conservator Forests, (Social Forestry), Maharashtra State, Pune, Central Building, Ground Floor, Pune – 411001 3. S. V. Mankawar, Age : Major, Occu.: Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Department, Nanded, Tq. & District : Nanded 4. K. Y. Shaikh, Age : Major, Occu.: Asst. Conservator of Forest, Social Forestry Department, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. : Nanded …. RESPONDENTS …. Ms. Poonam V. Bodke Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner Ms. M. N. Ghanekar, APP for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 Mr. V. D. Sapkal, Senior counsel a/w Mr. A. D. Khedkar & Mr. B. R. Salgude i/b Mr. Mahesh S. Taur, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 & 4 …. VS Maind/ Page|1 2026:BHC-AUG:39939-DB CRI. WP 1920-19 CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE & VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ. RESERVED ON PRONOUNCED ON : : 29/08/2026 31/08/2026 ORDER : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally at the admission stage, with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned APP for respondent–State and the learned senior counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner contends that respondent No.1, i.e. the State of Maharashtra, had launched a scheme, namely, the Smriti Udyan Yojana, with a view to create one Smriti Park in every district for generating awareness regarding plantation. Accordingly, at Village Bondar, Taluka and District Nanded, one Smriti Park was created over an area of 10 hectares from the funds contributed by donors. The petitioner was one of the donors, having donated an amount of Rs.500/- towards the plantation of mango trees in the name of his late grandfather, Lalu Gopa Chavhan and accordingly, he planted mango trees therein. The said scheme was in existence until the end of the year 2014-2015. However, thereafter, respondent No.3, without informing the donors and behind their back, abruptly discontinued the said scheme by launching another scheme, VS Maind/ Page|2 CRI. WP 1920-19 namely, the Late Uttamrao Patil Biodiversity Scheme and created a park at the same place where the Smriti Park had been established, allegedly by damaging all the trees that had earlier been planted therein. As such, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to conduct an enquiry into the matter, register an offence against respondent Nos.3 and 4 for allegedly siphoning off funds under the Smriti Park Scheme and take immediate steps for recovery of the said funds along with interest. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that respondent No.3 had abruptly discontinued the earlier scheme and introduced the subsequent scheme on the same land by cutting down the trees planted under the earlier scheme and misappropriating the funds received from the donors. According to her, criminal action needs to be initiated against respondent Nos.3 and 4 in respect thereof. 4. On the contrary, the learned APP, by filing an affidavit-in-reply, contended that the park established under the Smriti Udyan Yojana at Village Bondar is still in existence and that proper accounts of the amounts received from 162 donors have been maintained. According to her, the Social Forestry Division, Nanded, was already in possession of 10 hectares of land, out of which a Smriti Park was established over 2 hectares and the Smriti Udyan Yojana was implemented over 4.79 VS Maind/ Page|3 CRI. WP 1920-19 hectares. Accordingly, the entire land was for the said scheme only. Thereafter, pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 16/06/2015, another project, namely, the Late Uttamrao Patil Biodiversity Park Scheme, was implemented in the year 2015 at a different location. Thus, she submitted that the petition filed by the petitioner is frivolous and deserves to be dismissed. 5. On the other hand, learned senior counsel Mr. V. D. Sapkal, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4, also opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and pointed out that during the pendency of this writ petition, a committee was appointed to enquire into the complaint made by the petitioner. According to him, no substance was found in the allegations made by the petitioner in the said complaint, which are substantially similar to those made in the present writ petition. He further submitted that each and every allegation made by the petitioner was duly considered and none of the allegations was found to be substantiated. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Aleque Padamsee and Others v. Union of India and Others, 2007 DGLS (SC) 837, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that in the event of inaction on the part of the police, the remedy of filing a complaint before the learned Magistrate is available to the petitioner. Thus, he submitted that if at all the petitioner seeks criminal prosecution of respondent Nos.3 and 4, VS Maind/ Page|4 CRI. WP 1920-19 he ought to approach the concerned police station. He laid emphasis on the fact that when no substance was found in the complaint made by the petitioner, there arises no question of initiating criminal prosecution against respondent Nos.3 and 4. 6. Admittedly, the complaint dated 15/06/2019, wherein allegations similar to those made in the present writ petition were raised, was considered by the Enquiry Committee comprising the Conservator of Social Forestry Department, Nanded, as a member; the Forest Range Officer, as a member; and the Assistant Conservator of Forest, Social Forestry Department, Nanded, as the President of the Enquiry Committee. The Committee found no substance in the allegations made in the complaint by the petitioner. 7. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner during the said enquiry, but the fact remains that the Committee has already considered the complaint and found no substance in the allegations. It was, therefore, open to the petitioner to challenge the said decision. However, despite having knowledge of the same, the petitioner did not even seek amendment of the present writ petition to challenge the decision of the Committee dated 15/02/2020. At this stage, such an amendment cannot be permitted, as a civil writ petition would be the VS Maind/ Page|5 CRI. WP 1920-19 appropriate remedy for challenging the said report. Moreover, even if the petitioner seeks to initiate criminal prosecution, there must be some foundational material for initiating such proceedings. In the present case, when the Committee, upon considering the complaint made by the petitioner, has given a clean chit to respondent Nos.3 and 4, in our opinion, there is no foundation for the petitioner to initiate criminal prosecution against them. 8. In view of the aforesaid observations, the prayers made in the present writ petition need no consideration. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 9. Rule is discharged. [VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV] [SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE] JUDGE JUDGE VS Maind/ Page|6