Reply to PIL on DGP's extension'

Mumbai: The Bombay high court on Monday directed the Maharashtra government to reply to the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the second extension of three months granted to state Director General of Police (DGP) Dattatray Padsalgikar.

The division bench of Chief Justice Naresh Patil and Justice MS Karnik issued this direction while hearing the PIL filed by Thane-based lawyer R. R. Tripathi. The bench has asked the state to also give its view on whether the PIL was maintainable or not. The judges have sought clarification from government if this subject could be dealt with in PIL or not. The bench has deferred the hearing on the PIL for a week.

Advocate Tripathi told the court that his PIL was maintainable because the decision to grant extension to the DGP is contrary to the statutory provisions of law. He has sought a stay on the second extension granted to Padsalgikar.

On the other hand, the government pleader Abhinandan Vagyani contended that the state government had the power to grant extensions, and the central government has also approved the extension granted to Padsalgikar.

Padsalgikar was due to retire on August 31 this year but was granted an extension of three months. On November 30, he received another extension for three more months.

In his plea, Tripathi has contended that Padsalgikar was superannuated in August but was given an extension. He was granted an additional extension in December. According to the petitioner, this is illegal because the DGP is also a full-time member of the budget committee and as per All India Service (Death cum Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958, a member of the committee cannot be given an extension.