Disposed
Mangal Deepak Chavan - Shete v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Bombay HCWP/751/2007
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
SHEET NO.: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE…
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.
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE
WRIT PETITION NO.751 OF 2007
------------------------------------:-----------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : Court’s or Judge’s orders.
coram, appearances, Court’s orders :
or directions and Registrar’s :
orders. :
------------------------------------:------------------------------------
Mr.S.M.Sabrad for petitioner.
Mr.V.P.Malwankar, AGP for
respondents.
-----
CORAM : H.L GOKHALE, ACTING C.J. &
V.M.KANADE, J.
DATED: 6th February2007
P.C. :
1. Heard the learned Counsel
for the parties.
2. The petitioner’s husband
was working as the labourer on a
Canal, Neera Right Division at
Phaltan, District Satara. It is
her case that her husband received
an electric shock from a loose
wire and that is how he died on
2nd May 1982. There has been some
correspondence but the matter has
not been followed diligently. She
has made further representations
and there is a letter dated 1st
November 2006 from the Deputy
Engineer of the Neera Right Canal
Division, Phaltan wherein it is
stated that there are many
discrepancies in her demand. It
is also stated that there is no
question of giving any employment
to any of the family members since
the deceased was not in Government
service. The only statement from
which the petitioner can get some
benefit is in the last paragraph
of that letter which states that
if any papers are found that the
Irrigation Department is in any
way responsible for this accident,
compensation will have to be paid
to the petitioner.
3. The Executive Engineer has
forwarded a copy of that letter to
the petitioner. What we expect is
that he should inform the
petitioner whether from the
material on his record the
Department is in any way
responsible and if so, whether any
compensation will be paid. If he
is of the view that no
compensation is payable, he should
write to the petitioner saying
that she will not get any
compensation.
4. Petition disposed of with
the above order.
(ACTING C.J.)
(V.M. KANADE, J.)
Petitioner
Respondents
H.L GOKHALE
V.M.KANADE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court