Dismissed

Rafique Ahmed Shaikh Budhan and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Oct 2007PIL/114/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging Section 4(9) of the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947, and Rule 6(1) as ultra vires the Constitution. Finding the petitioners failed to substantiate their arguments, the court held there were no merits to entertain the petition further.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to raise the plea in an appropriate case.

Rafique Ahmed Shaikh Budhan and Anr. Vs the State of… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

 -: 1 :-

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 114 OF 2007

¶5

 Rafique Ahmed Shaikh Budhan & Anr... Petitioners.
 Versus

¶6

 The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .... Respondents.

¶7

 Mr.G.S.Godbole i/by Mr. R.D.Suryawanshi
 for the Petitioners.

¶8

 Mr. P. M. Patil, AGP for the State.
 Mr. R. D. Rane for Respondent No.2.
 Mr.S.M.Sabrad for Respondent No.3.

¶9

 Mr. Nitin Dhumal for Respondent No.5.

¶10

CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. &
DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.

¶11

DATED : 4TH OCTOBER, 2007.

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

 In this petition under Article 226 of the
 Constitution of India, the petitioners pray that the
 provisions of Section 4(9) of the Bombay Primary
 Education Act, 1947 as well as Rule 6(1) of the Bombay
 Primary Education Rules, 1949 be struck down as ultra
 virus the Constitution.

¶14

 2. At the very outset, we may notice that the learned
 Counsel appearing for the petitioners has not been

¶15

 -: 2 :-

¶16

 able to argue as to how the said provisions would be
 ultra vires of any constitutional provisions or even
 the provisions of the principal Act. We may refer to
 the Section 4(9), which reads as under:

¶17

 "Except as otherwise provided in this Act, the
 term of office of the members of the school board
 shall cease on the expiry of the term of the
 electing authorized municipality:

¶18

 Provided that the term of office of such members
 shall not be deemed to expire by reason only of
 the fact the authorized municipality is dissolved
 or superseded."

¶19

 3. It is argued that the above provisions give
 unfettered power to the State Government / Authority
 to appoint and/or not to appoint the members of the
 School Board and consequently rendering the period in
 the provision negative. We are unable to find any
 merits in this contention. The provision itself opens
 with the words "Except as otherwise provided in this
 Act", which clearly shows that this provision has to
 be operative in consonance and in conformity with the

¶20

 -: 3 :-

¶21

 other provisions of the Act and cannot be read in

¶22

 extract. Further more, in this writ petition, we
 cannot presume that the Authority concerned would not
 act or is not likely to act within the required
 period. Some discretion has been given to the
 Authority concerned and it is an expected norm of
 administrative functioning that all actions should be
 taken as contemplated under the law and within a
 reasonable time, where no specific time has been
 stated.

¶23

 4. We do not find any reason to entertain this writ
 petition any further and the same is dismissed.
 However, petitioners can raise the plea in an
 appropriate case.

¶24

 5. No order as to costs.

¶25

 Sd/-

¶26

CHIEFJUSTICE

¶27

 Sd/-

¶28

DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.

Rafique Ahmed Shaikh Budhan and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rafique Ahmed Shaikh Budhan and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Grampanchayat Chandgudewadi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Karim Babumiya Shaikh @ Baba Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dilip Ashok Desai and Anr. Vs Kolhapur Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Raghunath Khanu Deshinge Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The Peoples Union for Civil Liberties, and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anant Mohan Yadav and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kalu Krushna Shelkande Vs the Chief Secretary - State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Swatantryaveer Sawarkar Smarak Samiti Vs Municipal Commissioner of Nashik Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Rev. S.B.Pathane and Ors. Vs Rev. Daniyal R. Bhandare and Ors.

K.H.Sathale Vs M/S.Philips India Ltd.

Ma Care Vs the Union of India and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs Devidas Gangaram Gavhane and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs Prashant Narayan Phadtare