Disposed
The National Federation of Blind Maharashtra v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Bombay HCPIL/129/2003
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.75 OF 2006
Satyashodh and Others Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Others
..Petitioners.
..Respondents.
Mr. U.P. Warunjikar for the Petitioners. Mr. N.P. Deshpande, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Ms. Kanchan Pamnani for Respondent No.5.
WITH
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.129 OF 2003
The National Federation of Blind Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others
..Petitioner.
..Respondents.
Mr. U.P Warunjikar for the Petitioner. Mr. N.P. Deshpande, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 8. Mr. R.S. Apte for Respondent No.3.
WITH PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.139 OF 2006
Maharashtra Rajya Apang Karmachari Vs.
State of Maharashtra
..Petitioner.
..Respondent.
Mr. U.P. Warunjikar for the Petitioner. Mr. N.P. Deshpande, AGP for the State.
WITH
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.70 OF 2002
ILS Legal Aid Center & Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents.
Mr. N.P. Deshpande, AGP for the State.
2
CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 2nd August, 2007.
P.C. :
for complying with the previous orders of the Court. Counsel appearing for the Petitioners vehemently opposes an adjournment on the ground that the adjournments are being sought in a routine manner and without any specified object. It is pointed out that in connected Writ Petitions (Writ Petition 129 of 2003 and Writ Petition 139 of 2006) even six months time was granted to the State, but neither any steps have been taken nor the problem of backlog has been resolved. It is also contended that no policy has been framed by the State Government and declared to the public as yet in relation to – (a) partial/ full disability of an employee; (b) what is the policy of the State in regard to statutory reservation; (c) what steps are being taken by the State to clear the backlog under this disabled category and (d) what guidelines have been framed by the State and circulated to various departments/ organizations directly controlled by the State.
3
4
the contention raised on behalf of the Petitioners. We defer
taking of any stringent action against the authorities of the State in accordance with law, at this stage. While granting them a last opportunity we make it clear that if effective steps are not taken and a clear affidavit covering all the afore stated issues is not filed
within two weeks from today, the concerned Secretary of the Government shall remain present in Court with complete records on the next date.
Let a copy of the order under the signature of the Court
Associate be furnished to Counsel appearing for the State today itself.
Stand over to 16th August, 2007.
CHIEF JUSTICE
5
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to grant further extension to the State for complying with previous orders regarding reservation for disabled employees.
Satyashodh and Others
The State of Maharashtra
The National Federation of Blind
Maharashtra Rajya Apang Karmachari
ILS Legal Aid Center & Ors.
Swatanter Kumar
D.Y. Chandrachud
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court