Allowed

Dr. Smt. Vathsalya K. Shetty v. B.M.C. and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Sept 2008CHSW/86/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chamber summons allowed to amend the writ petition to record subsequent developments in disciplinary proceedings against a superior doctor. Court denied locus standi argument but permitted amendment to allow respondents to file additional affidavits.

What did the court decide?

Chamber summons made absolute to allow amendment of petition within two weeks to place record subsequent developments in disciplinary enquiry.

Dr. Smt. Vathsalya K. Shetty Vs B.M.C. and Ors. — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

 CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 86 OF 2008

¶5

IN

¶6

 WRIT PETITION NO. 2641 OF 2005

¶7

 Dr.Smt. Vathsalya K. Shetty. . .. Petitioner.

¶8

vs.

¶9

 Brihanmumbai Municipal

¶10

 Corporation & Ors. .. Respondents.

¶11

 Ms. N.D. Buch i/by Shailesh More for Petitioner.

¶12

 Ms. Manjula Rao i/by P.M. Havnur for Respondent

¶13

 No.4.

¶14

 Mr. C.U. Singh, Sr. Adv. with Ms. A.K. Savla

¶15

 for Respondent/BMC.

¶16

CORAM: J.N. PATEL, &

¶17

 K.K. TATED, JJ.

¶18

DATE: 9TH SEPTEMBER, 2008.

¶19

 P.C.

¶20

 . The petitioner has taken out this chamber
 summons to seek amendments to the petition so as to
 place on record subsequent developments in the matter
 of enquiry conducted by the Committee against sexual
 harassment, the appellate order and the findings
 recorded by the competent authority, A.M.C. (E.S.)

¶21

¶22

 which held that the charges i.e. behaviour of the
 respondent Dr. Banga and attitude towards his
 colleagues, subordinates and students, particularly
 female staff members was undesirable and intimidative
 and recommended stoppage of one increment for one year
 which order passed by the Disciplinary Authority was
 subsequently challenged before the appellate authority
 who has remanded the matter vide its order dated
 23.3.2008.

¶23

 2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for

¶24

 the petitioner that the reliefs sought for by the
 petitioner against the respondents is in the
 representative capacity as she is one of the
 subordinate staff members who was working under Dr.
 Banga. She is aggrieved by his exoneration and,
 therefore, wants to incorporate the proposed amendment
 and, therefore, the chamber summons be allowed.

¶25

 3. On the other hand, Mr. C.U. Singh, the
 learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Municipal
 Corporation, submits that the petitioner having
 conceded the findings of the Committee on account of
 charges (a) and (b) which were directly related to her
 complaint, cannot agitate the issue by seeking the
 proposed amendment as she has no locus standi in the
 matter. Her contention that the relief sought by her
 is in representative capacity also does not justify
 seeking such amendments to the petition and, therefore,

¶26

¶27

 the chamber summons needs to be rejected.

¶28

 4. We have gone through the proposed amendment
 which is sought by taking out this chamber summons. In
 our view, what the petitioner seeks to place on record
 are the subsequent developments and the findings of the
 disciplinary committee exonerating Dr. Banga of all
 the charges. Therefore, it cannot be said that this is
 a new cause of action which the petitioner wants to
 place on record by way of amending the petition.

¶29

 5. The respondents would have ample opportunity to
 file an additional affidavit by way of consequential
 amendment through their return in order to meet the
 case of the petitioner where all these issues and
 contentions can be raised right from locus standi of
 the petitioner and that the petitioner is abusing the

¶30

 process of the court by seeking such reliefs.
 Therefore, we are inclined to allow the chamber
 summons. The chamber summons is made absolute in terms

¶31

 of prayer clause (a). Necessary amendment be carried
 out within two weeks. We direct the petitioner to
 place on record the amended copy of the petition by
 updating the petition and furnish copies of the same to
 the parties. Liberty to the respondents to file their

¶32

 additional affidavits to meet the case of the
 petitioner within two weeks thereafter. S.O. to
 7.10.2008 along with the motion.

¶33

¶34

(J.N. Patel, J.)

¶35

(K.K. Tated J.)

Dr. Smt. Vathsalya K. Shetty v. B.M.C. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Smt. Vathsalya K. Shetty v. B.M.C. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.S.Joshi and Ors. Vs the Children'S Aid Society and Ors.

Mrs. Generosa a. Annes Vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and 3 Others

Bombay Environmental Action Group and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. and Charkop Shri Ganesh Smruti Chsl

Kasabai Datta Shinde Vs the State of Mahrashtra and 2 Ors.

Mysore Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Gaurang Jayendra Dholakia Vs State of Maharashtra Thru the Govt. Pl and 4 Ors.